Preamble

The House met at a quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

Oral Answers to Questions — PENSIONS HOSPITAL, BELLAHOUSTON.

Mr. BUCHANAN: 1.
asked the Minister of Pensions when it is proposed to shut down the Bellahouston hospital; if he has taken any steps to secure other accommodation; and if he can state where West of Scotland patients will be treated in the event of an early closing of this hospital?

The MINISTER of PENSIONS (Major Tryon): The Ministry's tenure of the hospital referred to will not extend beyond Whitsuntide, 1930. It is not possible at this early stage to indicate precisely the steps that will be taken to accommodate any patients who may then require hospital treatment, but no difficulty is anticipated in making satisfactory arrangements.

Mr. BUCHANAN: May I ask whether it is the intention of the Minister of Pensions to secure premises in the West of Scotland for these patients?

Major TRYON: As the hon. Member knows, I have always worked to maintain hospital accommodation in the West of Scotland and shall continue to do so as long as it is necessary, but I notice that he appears to be rather anxious as to the Government which will be in power in 1930.

Oral Answers to Questions — TAXIMETER CABS (DISINFECTION).

Mr. DAY: 2.
asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been called to the evidence given in a recent case in which it
was stated that taximeter cabs in garages are used for sleeping in at night by home-less persons; and whether there are any regulations making it incumbent upon the proprietors of taximeter cabs to have them regularly disinfected?

THE SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir William Joynson-Hicks): As the reply is long I will, with the honourable Member's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: May I take it that the right hon. Gentleman is going to take no steps in order to deprive these poor waifs of this night shelter?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: If the hon. and gallant Member will wait and see the answer to-morrow, I think he will find it satisfactory.

Following is the reply:

Inquiry has been made at the garages of motor-cab proprietors, and it has been ascertained that the use of taxicabs for sleeping in at night or for any unauthorised purpose is not countenanced by the proprietors of these vehicles. If it is done, it is done without their knowledge or consent. The disinfection of taxicabs is not a requirement in the Commissioner's Conditions of Fitness, but it is required by law when the vehicle is known to have conveyed a person suffering with an infectious disease. It is the general practice for proprietors to brush and dust the interiors of the cabs before they are taken from the garages to ply for hire, and in many cases it is known that the linings and cushions are sprayed with some form of disinfectant and the floors scrubbed with soft soap and hot water. Motor cabs are continually under the surveillance of public carriage officers and numerous cases are reported by them annually where it is considered that the interiors of cabs are unsuitable in the public interest from the point of view of cleanliness.

Oral Answers to Questions — ROYAL PARKS (PROSECUTIONS).

Mr. DAY: 3.
asked the Home Secretary the number of prosecutions which have
taken place with regard to incidents occurring in the royal parks, other than Hyde Park, in the Metropolitan area for the three months ended to the last convenient date; how many of these prosecutions have been successful; and whether any improvement has been made in the lighting of the various parks at night time?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: In the three months to 31st October, 1928, there were 328 prosecutions of 320 persons which succeeded except as regards six persons. My Noble Friend the First Commissioner of Works asks me to say that no increase has been made in the lighting of the parks in question as this is not considered necessary.

Mr. DAY: Can the right hon. Gentleman say in how many parks this number of prosecutions took place?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: In all parks in the Metropolitan area, other than Hyde Park.

Mr. DAY: Can the right hon. Gentleman give us the average number of prosecutions for different parks so that we can learn in which parks the greater number of these offences took place?

An HON. MEMBER: Which park do you want?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I would rather not mention it in public, but I can give the hon. Member the name of the safest park.

Oral Answers to Questions — FACTORY INSPECTION, SHEFFIELD AND GLASGOW.

Mr. CECIL WILSON: 4.
asked the Home Secretary the number of interviews given by the Sheffield district inspector of factories at his office in 1927; how many of these were granted to employés: whether, in the case of all such interviews, they took place in private, or whether an inspector of another district was present at some of them because the district inspector for Sheffield has no private office of his own; when the present district inspector retires; and what steps are being taken to prepare his successor to take up his duties in a district where the places under special inspection as to regulations are so large as in this case?

Sir W. J0YNSON-HICKS: The number of interviews was 596, of which 420 were interviews with employés. The district inspectors for Sheffield and Rotherham share the same room and the latter inspector was frequently present when these interviews took place. The presence of another Government inspector does not make the interview less private. The matters referred to in the last part of the question are under consideration. I will communicate with the hon. Member as soon as a decision is reached.

Mr. WILSON: If an employé desires to get certain information, surely there is someone else to whom he may apply?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: They have only one other Government inspector, but, if the hon. Member thinks there is any difficulty in this matter—I do not think there is, seeing that 420 employés came forward—I will gladly make other arrangements.

Mr. WILSON: 5.
asked the Home Secretary whether he is aware that out of a total of 1,729 dangerous occurrences, quoted in the Factory Report for 1927, 900 were reported in the Sheffield district; whether there is any reason for this large proportion; whether he is aware that the number of works or departments in Sheffield under special inspection as to regulations is larger than in any other district in England and Scotland; and whether the staff of inspectors is proportionately larger?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: Yes, I am aware of this fact and I believe the reason to be that Sheffield employers have been more meticulous in reporting breakages of chains and ropes which constitute the great majority of the occurrences reported. The figure for works or departments under regulation is higher for Sheffield than for other districts, but this is due to the fact that the tenement system of working still prevails to a large extent in Sheffield. I am advised that, taking all relevant factors into consideration, Sheffield has a fair share of the existing staff.

Mr. SHINWELL: Does not the answer indicate that in other districts accidents have not been reported regularly, and does not that call for additional inspectors?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: That is quite a different question to the one on the paper, and I must ask for notice of any particular case so that it may be investigated.

Mr. WILSON: While these accidents may be reported, does it follow that the number of inspectors is adequate considering the number of tenements to be inspected?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I admit that we are somewhat short of inspectors, but Sheffield is getting its fair share, and they are doing their work extraordinarily well.

Mr. BUCHANAN: 14.
asked the Home Secretary the number of factories employing women in the city of Glasgow last year which were inspected by factory inspectors; the number not so inspected; and how many prosecutions took place as the result of visits paid?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I am informed that the figures are 1,259 factories inspected during 1927, 191 not inspected, and 13 prosecutions resulting from the inspections.

Oral Answers to Questions — COAL INDUSTRY.

WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION.

Mr. MARDY JONES: 6.
asked the Home Secretary whether he is aware that, owing to the liquidation of the Lewis Merthyr Coal Company, Glamorgan, in the spring of this year, over 600 miners disabled whilst in the employ of the said company have been deprived of their weekly benefits under the Workmen's Compensation Acts ever since and have been rendered destitute thereby; is he aware that most of them have had to have recourse to poor relief; and what steps does he propose to take with regard to the representations made to him by the Pontypridd Board of Guardians and the Bridgend Board of Guardians, who are jointly charged with the relief of most, if not all, these cases?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I deeply regret the prolonged suspension of the weekly payments in these cases. I am informed by the receivers in charge of the company that it was necessary first to arrive at a settlement in regard to all the
claims outstanding, and that this was a lengthy business, but agreements have now been reached in all cases, and they have obtained the authority of the High Court to make a payment of 20 per cent. on account in each case as soon as the agreements have been registered. I am afraid that the final payments may have to wait over until the whole account is closed. As regards the last part of the question, I must refer the hon. Member to my reply to his previous question on Thursday last. A system of compulsory insurance as proposed by the guardians would involve an amendment of the law of a far-reaching character which could not he undertaken without the most careful consideration.

Mr. MARDY JONES: With regard to the latter part of the right hon. Gentleman's reply, do I understand him to say that this was undertaken by the guardians? The guardians have been asked to relieve these people, because they have been deprived of compensation.

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I did not say that it was undertaken by the guardians. I said that the system of compulsory insurance as proposed by the guardians would mean an alteration of the law.

Mr. MARDY JONES: Is it not the case that not only the guardians but hon. Members of this House have been pressing this matter for some time past I understood from the reply which he gave on Thursday last that, if the matter could be produced in the form of a short Bill of a non-controversial character, the right, hon. Gentleman would give it his serious consideration. Has he done so?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: In the first place, I must ask the hon. Member to look at his own question, which is:
What steps does he propose to take with regard to the representations made to hint by the Pontypridd hoard of guardians.
I have answered that question. Now the hon. Member asks a supplementary question. I have several other questions on the Paper on the same subject, and perhaps, after I have answered them, he will consider whether it is necessary to put a further question.

Mr. MORGAN JONES: I understand that these men concerned will be guaranteed compensation sooner or later?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I have not said that, and please do not let it go out as having been said by me.

Mr. MARDY JONES: Is it possible for the right hon. Gentleman to use his good influence to expedite the payment of the 20 per cent., which I understand is now being given to assist these people who have been without money since March last and are in real distress because of it?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: If the hon. Member will pay careful attention to my answer, he will see that I have been in communication directly with the receivers, and I am doing all I can in what I admit are very unfortunate circumstances.

Mr. MARDY JONES: 7.
asked the Home Secretary how many colliery corn-panics in Great Britain have not insured against their liabilities to their employés under the Workmen's Compensation Acts; and can he state how many of the said companies have gone into liquidation since 1st January, 1927, to the latest available date, and how many of the liquidated companies have failed to pay compensation to their disabled miners, giving the names of each such company and the number of disabled miners so affected who were in their employ up to disablement?

Mr. JOHN: 13.
asked the Home Secretary whether he is now able to provide statistics showing with reference to the colliery companies in South Wales that have gone into voluntary liquidation or bankruptcy during the last two years, the number which had not insured with an insurance company or a mutual indemnity company against workmen's compensation risk; and the number of workmen who are deprived of their right to compensation in consequence?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: The total number of colliery Owners in Great Britain not insured either with an insurance company or a mutual indemnity association was, according to the last returns, 476. I regret that the information asked for by the hon. Member for Ponty-
pridd (Mr. Mardy Jones) in the last part of his question is not immediately available and will take a little time to collect, but I have been in consultation with the Mines Department and I hope that it will be possible with their co-operation and with the assistance of the liquidators concerned to obtain particulars. I would also invite any hon. Member who is aware of any such cases during the period in question to furnish me with the name of the colliery and any other particulars in his possession.

Mr. MARDY JONES: On Thursday last the right hon. Gentleman, in reply to a question of mine, said the number of colliery companies which had insured was 1,100 odd. The figure he has given now of colliery companies which have not insured is 476. Is it not a very serious state of affairs in the coal industry that nearly one-third of the colliery companies have not taken the necessary precaution to insure so that their workpeople, who have to risk life and limb in their behalf to produce coal and profits for the shareholders, may be safeguarded absolutely against the effects of liquidation? [HON. MEMBERS: "Speech!"] I must press for an answer, because this is a matter of the utmost importance.

Mr. SPEAKER: I quite realise the importance of the question, but no answer is necessary to the supplementary question of the hon. Member. He was only giving information.

Mr. MARDY JONES: I beg to give notice that, in view of the unsatisfactory nature of the replies of the right hon. Gentleman, I shall raise the question on the Adjournment of the House.

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: May I say to the hon. Member that, until I have completed my inquiries, which I am conducting with all rapidity, it is quite impossible for me to give a further reply?

Mr. MARDY JONES: rose
—

Mr. SPEAKER: We cannot have any more questions now.

Mr. JOHN: 12.
asked the Home Secretary whether he has given further consideration and will he now state whether he will introduce this Session a Bill making it compulsory on all colliery
companies to insure with an insurance company against workmen's compensation risk?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I am afraid it is impossible for me to add anything at present to the reply I gave on this subject to the question asked by the hon. Member on Thursday last. All I can say is that I am fully alive to the gravity of the question raised by the hon. Member and that as soon as the results of the inquiries I am making into the facts of the situation are available, it will receive most careful and sympathetic consideration.

Mr. JOHN: Will the right hon. Gentleman be able to give me the information if I repeat the question in a week's time? Will he then have completed his inquiry?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I shall do my best to get full information.

DISTRESSED AREAS (BELIEF).

Sir HARRY BRITTAIN: 48.
asked the Minister of Health whether he has any information from his inspectors as to the number of women and children in the mining areas who are dependent upon out-of-work miners, and as to the sufficiency of the assistance which they are receiving; and, if so, whether he will lay such information upon the Table of the House?

The MINISTER OF HEALTH (Mr. Chamberlain): No, Sir. Statistics on the point raised by my hon. Friend are not available. But as I have already informed the House an investigation into the circumstances is now being made by officers of my Department. As regards persons in receipt of Poor Relief, the latest information is contained in the published statement showing the number of persons in receipt of Poor Law relief in the quarter ending in September, 1928, of which I will send my hon. Friend a copy.

OIL EXTRACTION (TURNER PROCESS).

Mr. BUCHANAN: 71.
asked the Secretary for Mines if his Department have fully investigated what is known as the Turner method of treatment of coal, and what is the result; and if he can give any estimate of the employment of unemployed miners likely to be created by the adoption of this method.

The SECRETARY for MINES (Cornmodere Douglas King): With regard to the first part of the question, I would refer the hon. Member to the answer which I gave on 13th November last to my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Stirling and Clackmannan (Captain Fanshawe), and the hon. Member for Dundee (Mr. Johnston). There has been no change in the position since that date. The reply to the second part of the question is in the negative.

BEET-SUGAR INDUSTRY (WORKING HOURS).

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 8.
asked the Home Secretary whether' he has now been able to effect any further improvement in the hours of work in the beet-sugar factories; if he is aware that the charge hands are still compelled to work 12-hours shifts with an 18-hours shift once a, fortnight at the change-over; that they have no opportunity to take proper food during these shifts, which are worked in a very heated atmosphere and under most trying conditions; and what action he is now able to take in the matter?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: As I previously explained to the hon. and gallant Member, I have no jurisdiction with regard to the hours and meal times of adult men, but the Ministry of Agriculture have pressed upon the managements of the factories the desirability of adopting the system of three eight-hour shifts wherever practicable. The men themselves, however, are stated in some cases to prefer the longer shifts. The processes are continuous and there are no fixed meal intervals, but I understand there is no difficulty in the way of the workers taking their meals, relieving one another for the purpose where necessary. All these factories have been visited by the factory inspectors in the last few months and special attention has been paid to the question of ventilation and the welfare arrangements which are reported to be generally satisfactory.

Mr. M0NTAGUE: Is not the statement made by the right hon. Gentleman the same argument as is used for the long hours of Indian coolies in Indian factories—that They like them?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: No,

METROPOLITAN POLICE (CALL BOXES).

Sir NICHOLAS GRATTAN-DOYLE: 9.
asked the Home Secretary whether it is proposed to introduce a system of police boxes in the area of the Metropolitan Police?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: Police telephone boxes have been in use in the Metropolitan Police district for many years. It is now proposed to improve and extend the system. An improved type of box, which will afford increased facilities for telephonic communication to police stations by both members of the public and police, will be introduced and boxes placed so as to afford means of ready communication between constables on their beats and police stations. Linked up with this development and forming part of the scheme, motor transport will be provided and so organised as to enable police to take prompt and effective action in cases of crime or in any case where their services are required, such as accidents, fires, etc., including conveyance of persons arrested. It has been decided in the first instance to introduce these developments in two different suburbs within the Metropolitan Police district and extend as needs demand and experience justifies.

Sir N. GRATTAN-DOYLE: Has my right hon. Friend's attention been called to the system of police boxes introduced by the chief constable in Newcastle-on-Tyne—a system which has been extensively used not only in this country but in other countries, and will he say whether he is using that particular system?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: My attention has been drawn to the system. I think that my hon. Friend will find that the system in London, when working, will be satisfactory.

Sir N. GRATTAN-DOYLE: Is my right hon. Friend actually aware of the particular system introduced at Newcastle-on-Tyne?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: Yes, Sir.

Captain STREATFEILD: Is the Home Secretary aware that if the private householder wants to call the Fire Brigade he simply has to say "Fire" down the
telephone. Cannot a similar arrange went be made for calling up the police in circumstances of urgency?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: That question might be addressed to my right hon. Friend the Postmaster-General, but, as a matter of fact, I think such a system is in working order now.

Captain STREATFEILD: Can a statement to that effect be inserted in the Telephone Directory?

Mr. DAY: How many boxes are being built in the two suburbs that have been mentioned?

Mr. ERSKINE: Will the right hon. Gentleman give the House 'an undertaking that he will not have these boxes painted red?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I shall give that matter consideration.

ELECTORAL REGISTER (FORMS).

Sir N. GRATTAN-DOYLE: 10.
asked the Home Secretary what is the minimum period prescribed for the return of the form issued to householders under the Representation of the People Act for the purpose of compiling the new register?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: The period is left to the discretion of the Registration Officer in each area, and no minimum has been prescribed.

Mr. MARDY JONES: Has the right hon. Gentleman's attention been already called to the fact that these forms are not properly filled in?

NEWSPAPER COMPETITIONS.

Major BRAITHWAITE: 11.
asked the Home Secretary in view of the ruling of the Courts in reference to football competitions in newspapers, whether he will introduce legislation to make such competitions legal?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I have received no request from any newspaper for such legislation and it is far too soon to consider it.

Captain GARRO-JONES: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the utter confusion in which the law relating to news-
paper competitions stands, in that it permits what are called bullets or missing words, but does not permit last-line competitions? Will he bring in legislation to amend and clarify the law?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I am afraid that I have not any experience of bullets and last-line competitions. If the hon. and gallant Member will prepare me a paper on the subject, I shall be glad to consider it.

Commander BELLAIRS: Is my right hon. Friend aware that this legal decision is highly unpopular, that there is a demand for legislation, and that in many quarters the decision is attributed erroneously to the Government?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: Of course, the Government had nothing whatever to do with the legal decision. It is far too early for the Government to consider dealing with a decision which was given, I think, only a week ago. Until to-day I have not heard the view expressed that the decision was unpopular.

Major BRAITHWAITE: Were these proceedings taken at the instigation of the right hon. Gentleman's Department?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: No, Sir.

WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION (SHIPPING AND MINING INDUSTRIES).

Commander BELLAIRS: 15.
asked the Home Secretary if he will state the percentage of loss of life and the number of settlements of claims under the Workmen's Compensation Act in the mercantile marine and in coal mines, respectively, for the latest years available?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: According to the Workmen's Compensation returns for 1927, the number of fatal cases expressed as a percentage of the number of persons employed was, in the Shipping Industry 0.103 and in the Mining Industry 0.107. The total number of cases for which compensation was paid in the Shipping Industry was 7,771, but this included 1,030 cases continued from previous years. The corresponding figures in the Mining Industry were 205,382 and 33,344.

Oral Answers to Questions — EDUCATION.

TRAFFIC RISKS (WARNING).

Brigadier-General WARNER: 16.
asked the President of the Board of Education if, having regard to the number of accidents reported as occurring to children through motor traffic, he will consider the advisability of issuing a recommendation to all schools throughout the country that children should be repeatedly warned of the risks they incur in crossing streets and playing games in streets and roads?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of EDUCATION (Duchess of Atholl): My right hon. Friend circulated a memorandum to local education authorities last December, calling their attention to this matter, and I believe that they are fully alive to the importance of warning the children against traffic dangers. I am glad to be able to add that, in the Metropolitan area, the number of street accidents to children expressed as a percentage of the total number of such accidents shows a steady decline.

Brigadier-General WARNER: Does the Noble Lady think that the instruction that has been issued throughout the country is being effectively carried out? I am aware that the accidents in London are fewer, but are they fewer throughout the country?

Duchess of ATH0LL: I require notice of that question.

Mr. MORGAN JONES: Would it not be better to provide adequate playing grounds for the children rather than let them play in the streets?

SECONDARY SCHOOLS (WELSH LANGUAGE).

Sir ROBERT THOMAS: 17.
asked the President of the Board of Education if he can state the number of scholars in Welsh county (secondary) schools who, during the last school year, took Welsh as a classical course instead of Latin or Greek, and the number who took Latin and/or Greek?

Duchess of ATH0LL: It will probably suffice for the hon. Baronet's purposes if I give the numbers of pupils who were presented in Welsh, Latin and Greek, respectively, for the examinations of the Central Welsh Board in 1928. Of the 127 schools examined, 103
presented 2,086 pupils in Welsh; 123 the first part of the question is in the presented 2,173 pupils in Latin; 14 presented 59 pupils in Greek.

Oral Answers to Questions — PUBLIC HEALTH.

NURSING ASSOCIATIONS.

Mr. DAY: 21.
asked the Minister of Health whether his attention has been drawn to the necessity of closer association and co-operation during this coming winter between the various local nursing associations; and can he state what action has been taken by his Department with regard to it?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I cannot trace the receipt in my Department of any communication on this subject; but if the hon. Member will give me further particulars I will make inquiry.

MENTAL HOSPITALS (WOMEN VISITORS.

Sir ROBERT NEWMAN: 29.
asked the Minister of Health how many women patients of unsound mind are detained in borough or county mental hospitals in England and Wales where there is no woman member on the visiting committee; how many of these are detained in hospitals under the control of councils who have no women members and are prevented by law from co-opting women on these committees; and whether he intends to propose legislation making it compulsory that a certain number of women shall be appointed to serve on all county and borough mental hospital visiting committees where women are detained?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Information in regard to the first part of the question is not available. The point raised by my hon. Friend in the latter part of the question has been noted for consideration when legislation dealing with the subject is proposed.

LOCK HOSPITAL, HARROW ROAD.

Mr. THURTLE: 40.
asked the Minister of Health whether the Report of the Inquiry into the Lock Hospital, Harrow Road, has yet been submitted to him; and, if so, whether he proposes to publish it at an early date?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative. The question of publication will be considered later on.

MILK SUPPLIES (PAPER BOTTLES).

Sir H. BRITTAIN: 44.
asked the Minister of Health whether his attention has been called to the experiment of the delivery of milk in paper bottles; and whether he proposes to instruct his inspectors to report on the plan?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I am aware that a certain number of firms have had this question under consideration, but so far as I know the experiment has not been tried on any considerable scale in this country. Until further experience is available, I think it scarcely necessary to call for a report.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOUSING.

BRICKS (PRICES).

Mr. WELLOCK: 22.
asked the Minister of Health if he is aware that the price of bricks has risen from 27s. 6d. in April, 1914, to 60s. in October, 1928, in Birmingham, as against 29s. in April, 1914, and 40s. in October, 1928, in Newcastle-upon-Tyne, and that the price of bricks in the period mentioned has risen twice as much in the Midlands and the South as in the North of England; and if he will inquire into the matter?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The inter-Departmental Committee on prices of building materials have already drawn attention to the fact that reductions in the prices of bricks which have been made in many districts have not taken effect in Birmingham. I understand that the Committee have the matter still under consideration.

Mr. WELLOCK: Can nothing be done to regulate this matter, as inquiries show that these prices make a difference of £10 to £20 in the cost of building a house in the Midlands compared with the North?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I do not know how the hon. Member has arrived at his figures. The price varies, of course. He may rest assured that the matter is under consideration.

Mr. WELLOCK: 18,000 bricks at a £1 a thousand makes the difference.

Mr. CRAWFURD: With regard to the whole country, will the right hon. Gentleman consider again the possibility of circularising local authorities and suggesting that they should ask for tenders, not only from firms within the ring, but from those outside the ring as well?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I think one may take it that the local authorities are quite able to look after themselves.

Mr. TAYLOR: When did the Committee meet last?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I could not say without notice.

SUBSIDY.

Major KINDERSLEY: 23.
asked the Minister of Health if he is now in a position to make an announcement regarding the future arrangements as to the housing subsidy?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Yes, Sir. After consultation with the representatives of local authorities in accordance with Section 5 of the Housing (Financial Provisions) Act, 1924, it is proposed to issue an order altering the contributions payable. The alterations in England and Wales will be as follow:
As regards houses to which the Housing etc. Act, 1923, applies no further contributions will be payable.
As regards houses to which the Housing (Financial Provisions) Act, 1924, applies the annual Exchequer contribution will be reduced by £1 10s. per house.
These alterations will apply 'to any houses completed after 30th September, 1929, the present rates of Exchequer contribution being available for all houses completed up to that date.

Mr. TAYLOR: Will the Minister sympathetically consider extending the time limit in the case of slum clearance schemes—that is to say, where houses are being built for rehousing under slum clearance schemes?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The hon. Member must be under a misapprehension. These provisions do not apply to houses built under slum clearance schemes.

Mr. MONTAGUE: What is the main reason for this reduction?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: That, perhaps, I could give better when I come to move a Resolution on the subject.

Mr. HARRIS: Is the right hon. Gentleman giving sympathetic consideration to the representations made by the London County Council for a special subsidy to meet the difficulty of finding tenements in the centre of London, which are very costly owing to the expensive nature of the sites but which are required owing to the cost of transport?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Yes, Sir, I am giving consideration to those representations.

Mr. TAYLOR: Is it not a fact that, where there are voluntary schemes for the re-housing of tenants who are losing their homes owing to slum clearance, those schemes are getting a subsidy; and will the Minister extend the time, so that, in cases where there is any difficulty about the completion of such schemes, those concerned will be sure of the full subsidy?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I do not understand what the hon. Member means by voluntary schemes. In every slum clearance scheme, some provision has to be made for re-housing the people. Under those arrangements, the provisions of the Act referred to do not apply.

Several HON. MEMBERS: rose
—

Mr. SPEAKER: I think hon. Members had better wait until the Minister moves a Motion on this subject in the House.

Mr. WELLOCK: 28.
asked the Minister of Health if, in coming to a decision upon the housing subsidy, he will take into account the gradual fall in wages during recent years and the impossibility of paying the present high rents from such Wages; and if he is yet in a position to state his future policy regarding the housing subsidy?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I can assure the hon. Member that all relevant considerations were taken into account in arriving at the decision on housing subsidy which has just been announced.

Mr. WELLOCK: Is the Minister aware that we have only just begun to touch the slum problem; and that people in the slums who have larger families than those outside the slums simply cannot
afford to pay the increased rents that will be entailed by a reduction of the subsidy?

Mr. THURTLE: Will the right hon. Gentleman also take into account the fact that at the present time there is still acute overcrowding in places like London?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: That is one of the relevant considerations.

Major Sir ARCHIBALD SINCLAIR: 78.
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he is yet in a position to state the future intentions of the Government with regard to housing subsidies in Scotland?

The SECRETARY of STATE for SCOTLAND (Sir John Gilmour): It is proposed, after consultation with the representatives of local authorities as required by the Statute, to make an Order in terms of Section 5 of the Housing (Financial Provisions) Act, 1924, providing that the existing contributions by the State in Scotland will be payable in respect of houses completed by 30th September, 1929. In respect of houses completed after that date, the contribution under the Housing, etc., Act, 1923, will be reduced to 4 per house per annum for 20 years, and under the Housing (Financial Provisions), Act, 1924, will be reduced to £7 10s. (in rural areas as defined in the Act, to £11) per house per annum for 40 years.

Mr. SHINWELL: Did the Secretary of State for Scotland not discover, after consultation with the local authorities in Scotland, that they were extremely unfavourable to this proposal to reduce the subsidy for housing?

Mr. MACPHERSON: Does the answer which the right hon. Gentleman has given include the subsidy to houses under the Rural Workers Act?

Sir J. GILMOUR: Yes, Sir, the rural areas defined in the Act will have a reduction to £11. In answer to the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Shinwell), I would say that of course I have taken into consideration all the circumstances. I heard representatives from the local authorities, and, after considering their views, I have come to this conclusion.

Mr. BARR: Has it been calculated that by continuing the full subsidy to the end of 1929 we shall be on a par, so far as our quota is concerned, with the number of houses and the expenditure for England—on the full subsidy?

Mr. SHINWELL: May I ask whether the local authorities in Scotland have not expressed themselves as unfavourable to this proposal, and, in view of their representations, will the right hon. Gentleman not be prepared to reconsider the matter?

Sir J. GILMOUR: In answer to the hon. Member for Motherwell (Mr. Barr), it is entirely dependent, of course, upon the local authorities. In answer to the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Shin-well), while the view expressed by the local authorities was that they would desire to retain and continue the subsidy, I am satisfied that they were not unprepared for the decision which has now been made. I should like to say, in answer to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Ross and Cromarty (Mr. Macpherson), that this reduction does not affect the Act for the improvement of rural housing.

Sir A. SINCLAIR: Arising out of that answer to my right hon. Friend the Member for Ross and Cromarty (Mr. Macpherson), does the right hon. Gentleman mean that it does not affect the subsidies granted under the Housing (Rural Workers) Act, 1926, but does affect the subsidies granted in rural areas under the 1923 and 1924 Acts?

Sir J. GILMOUR: Yes, that is correct.

Mr. BARR: Referring to the answer just given, if the progress is at the present rate, will it give a fair chance to the authorities to have the equal quota with the full subsidy in England, and, if there should not be the equal quota, will provision be taken in the next stage to make up to Scotland what she loses in this regard?

Sir J. GILMOUR: If the progress approaches anything like what has been accomplished in the past year, I am satisfied that we shall be able to make the progress the hon. Gentleman desires, but it must be understood that we have attained a period when we have had the
full subsidy in Scotland and England has not had it, and obviously we must 'begin to make a reduction.

RURAL WORKERS ACT.

Mr. HURD: 30.
asked the Minister of Health if he will make available for Members of Parliament copies of his Ministry's new circular to local authorities as to their co-operation with the Council for the Preservation of Rural England and the Royal Institute of British Architects in the operation of the Housing (Rural Workers) Act, 1926, so as to preserve the picturesque character of English villages?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Copies of the circular in question (Ministry of Health Circular 940) may be obtained by hon. Members on application in the usual manner to the Controller, Stationery Office.

Mr. HURD: In view of the right hon. Gentleman's desire that this matter should be known in the fullest possible way, could not copies be made available in the Vote Office for Members?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I think the hon. Member can get a copy free by filling up a form, but, as the cost is only one penny, he may not think it worth while.

Mr. HURD: Is it not the case that if these papers are not made available in the Vote Office, they very seldom come under the attention of hon. Members?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: That will be corrected now that I have given the information.

Sir H. BRITTAIN: 47.
asked the Minister of Health what is the nature of the arrangements which have been made to enable local authorities who propose to carry out works of repair and reconditioning under the Housing (Rural Workers) Act, and to preserve the amenities to their districts, to receive expert advice?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I have recently issued a circular to local authorities setting out the arrangements made in regard to the matter referred to, and I will furnish the hon. Member with a copy of it.

RURAL WORKERS' DWELLINGS, HAMPSHIRE.

Mr. MORGAN JONES: 32.
asked the Minister of Health the number of con-
demned rural workers' dwellings in Hampshire?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I regret that the information desired is not available.

RENTS, BIGGLESWADE.

Mr. KELLY: 41.
asked the Minister of Health what action has been taken in the Biggleswade rural area with landlords who continue to charge rent which includes the rates for houses despite the operation of a new system by the rural district council under which the rates are paid by the tenant direct to the council?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: My attention has not been drawn to this matter, but I will make inquiry and will communicate further with the hon. Member.

LONDON COUNTY COITNCIL ESTATE, ILFORD (SALE).

Mr. CRAWFURD: 43.
asked the Minister of Health whether and, if so, on what date he gave his sanction to a contract for the sale by the Corporation of London to Mr. Charles Henry Lord of their housing estate at Ilford; what was the original price per house of the houses included in the contract; and what was the corresponding price under the contract?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: My sanction to the sale by the City Corporation of their houses at Ilford was given on 22nd June, 1928. The average cost of the houses included in the sale contract was about £1,614, and the corresponding price receivable by the Corporation about £540.

Mr. THURTLE: In view of the loss incurred, may I ask if this contract was put out to tender, if there was any offer made to the sitting tenant at the same price at which it was sold by contract, and if any protest has been received from any of the tenants?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I must ask for notice of all those questions.

POOR LAW (CASUALS).

Mr. SHEPHERD: 24.
asked the Minister of Health whether he will recommend to all boards of guardians that on Christmas Day food similar to that issued to the inmates be given to the casuals also?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The power given by the regulations of giving special allowances at Christmas time to persons in receipt of relief including casuals is well known to boards of guardians, and I see no necessity for further action on my part.

Mr. SHEPHERD: Will the right hon. Gentleman give a little encouragement to the backward boards of guardians to do what some of the best ones are already attempting to do?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I do not quite follow the hon. Member's question.

Mr. SHEPHERD: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there are isolated cases where the best boards of guardians are doing it; and that with a little encouragement all of them would do it?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I think it is a matter for the guardians themselves.

Oral Answers to Questions — LOCAL GOVERNMENT AND RATING.

EXCHEQUER GRANT.

Mr. BARKER: 25.
asked the Minister of Health if the population grant under the Local Government Bill will be paid direct to the district councils or through the county authority; and, if the latter, will he give an assurance that the county authority shall not retain the same in payment of arrears of precepts, in view of the financial position of the necessitous areas?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: It is proposed that general Exchequer grant to district councils should be paid direct to the council and not through the county authority.

Mr. BARKER: May I call attention to the second part of the question?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I think my answer covers both parts of the question. The second part does not arise in view of the answer to the first.

Mr. MARDY JONES: Is it a fact that in Monmouthshire, according to the right hon. Gentleman's own White Paper, certain local authorities will lose by the distribution?

Mr. SPENKER: The hon. Member is now giving information instead of asking for it.

Sir WALTER PRESTON: 42.
asked the Minister of Health whether under the Local Government Bill, the county councils will receive a grant to cover the loss to the county rate as a result of the de-rating after taking into account the expenses of the transferred services; and will the effect of this be to maintain the contribution of the various local authorities in the county in the same proportion as at present.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The grant allocated to every county, that is the county apportionment, will always cover, and more than cover, the loss of rates and grants of the standard year of the county as a whole but the grant to the county council after the distribution has been made to the county districts, that is, the general Exchequer grant of the county, will not necessarily cover the loss on account of the county rates and grants including the rates and grants for the transferred services. The benefit of the total grant to the county will, therefore, be enjoyed by the general ratepayer, partly through the general Exchequer grant to the county council and partly through the direct grant to the district council. The relation between the contributions of the various local authorities to the services which will in future be covered by the county rate will necessarily be different from that now prevailing largely owing to the change in the incidence of rates for the transferred services.

Mr. ERNEST BROWN: Has the right hon. Gentleman in mind the preparation of a table of illustrative figures to show the comparative effect on the non-county boroughs and urban districts as between the grant on this system, the secondary grant on actual population, and their loss of rates?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: No, I have not contemplated any such table, but a great many figures will be given in the table which I am issuing.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: If this question is repeated in a week, will the right hon. Gentleman give the same answer?

CARDIGAN, MERIONETH AND RADNOR.

Mr. MORRIS: 33.
asked the Minister of Health whether he can give the particulars of the financial effects of the proposals for reform in local government as they affect the county of Cardigan?

Mr. HAYDN JONES: 34.
asked the Minister of Health whether he will supply particulars of the financial effects of the proposals for the reform of local government as they affect the counties of Merioneth and Radnor?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I hope to be in a position to publish in due course illustrative figures for every Rating Area in the country. Figures for the Rating Areas in the counties of Cardigan, Merioneth and Radnor would be included in any such publication.

COAL INDUSTRY.

Mr. MARDY JONES: 70.
asked the Secretary for Mines what is his estimate of the average cost per ton upon the saleable coal of the local rates chargeable upon collieries in each of the following coalfields: South Wales, Durham, Northumberland, Lancashire, and the Midlands; and, failing an estimate per coalfield, what is his estimate for the collieries in each of the following administrative counties: Glamorgan, Monmouthshire, Carmarthenshire, Durham, Northumberland, Lancashire, Derbyshire, and Nottinghamshire?

Commodore KING: The average cost of local rates per ton of saleable coal raised in the coalfields named is as follows: South Wales and Monmouth, 7.17d., Durham 4.57d., Northumberland 4.18d., Lancashire and Cheshire 3.64d., and Derbyshire and Nottinghamshire 3.17d. The figures relate to the six months ended 30th September, 1928, except in the case of South Wales and Monmouth, where the period is the six months ended 31st October, 1928.

WOOLWICH BOROUGH COUNCIL (SURCHARGE).

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: 26.
asked the Minister of Health whether he has issued any instructions to the public auditor in reference to equal pay for equal work for men and women; and on
what grounds the public auditor surcharged the Woolwich Borough Council for paying to women bath attendance and convenience attendants the same wages as to men with identical qualifications and the same hours?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative. I understand that the auditor made the surcharge referred to in the second part of the question on the grounds that the work done by women and men in the lowest manual labour grade was not equal and was subject to different awards by the Joint Industrial Council concerned.

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: Does the right, hon. Gentleman consider that that answers the second part of the question which refers, not to the lowest manual labour grade, but to those persons who have particular qualifications for particular work? Why does the auditor deal with those particular persons in that way?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The auditor's reason was exactly what I stated.

NATIONAL HEALTH INSURANCE (ADVISORY COMMITTEE.)

Mr. JOHN: 27.
asked the Minister of Heath whether he has under consideration the setting up of an advisory committee for dealing with the question whether certain articles ordered from time to time for insured persons by insurance practitioners are foods which cannot, therefore, properly be supplied to insured persons as part of their medical benefit under the National Health Insurance Acts; and whether, if so, he will include in such committee a representative of the Association of Welsh Insurance Committees?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative; I shall hope to make some provision for the representation of Wales on the committee.

CONTRIBUTORY PENSIONS ACT.

Mr. L'ESTRANGE MALONE: 36.
asked the Minister of Health whether, in view of the fact that the referees appointed under the Contributory Pensions (References) Regulations, when hearing appeals for pensions under the
Widows', Orphans', and Old Age Contributory Pensions Act, 1925, may decide that a case is of such a nature that it can be determined without a hearing, and that an applicant has no appeal against such refusal to be heard, he will consider taking steps to amend the Act to give such persons the right to be heard?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I am not aware of any case in which it has been suggested that hardship has resulted from the provision referred to by the hon. Member which is embodied in the References Regulations. The referees have always been ready to grant hearings on the request of applicants except in cases where it is clear that there is no possibility of the claim succeeding. If in a particular case, it is contended that through the failure to have a hearing some material fact has not been before the referees, the position of the claimant is safeguarded by Section 29 (3) of the Act which enables the Minister to revise any award or decision on new facts being brought to his notice.

GAS PROTOCOL.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 45.
asked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the ratification by France, Italy, Russia, Germany, and some 30 other nations of the Geneva Protocol prohibiting the use 'of poison gas in war, it is proposed that the British Government shall ratify; and, if not, will he state the present reasons?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. Godfrey Locker-Lampson): I have been asked to reply. The hon. and gallant Member is under a misapprehension. The Gas Protocol has only been ratified by six States, amongst which Germany is not included. As my right hon. Friend stated in this House on the 18th July, His Majesty's Government are not prepared to ratify the Protocol unless all the other signatories are ready to do so.

Sir A. SHIRLEY BENN: Is it not a fact that under the Hague Convention the use of poison gas is illegal, and that, although that was broken during the War, the Versailles Treaty confirmed the Hague Convention; and is it not also
a fact that our Army Orders to-day prevent the use of poison gas unless it is used by the enemy?

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: I ought to point out that this has nothing whatever to do with the Versailles Treaty, but merely has reference to the ratification of the Protocol.

Mr. BECKETT: Is it not also a fact that this country is spending a considerable amount of money in experiments to find more dangerous gases?

Mr. SPEAKER: That does not arise.

WIRELESS AND CABLE SERVICES.

Mr. MALONE: 46.
asked the Prime Minister whether the proposals contained in the Imperial Telegraphs Bill and the scheme outlined in the Report of the Imperial Wireless and Cable Conference, 1928, Cmd. 3163, have been considered by or approved by the Committee of Imperial Defence?

The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Baldwin): The strategical aspect of this question was examined by the Committee of Imperial Defence, and its recommendations on the subject were placed before the Imperial Wireless and Cables Conference. The Report of this Conference is in accord with the recommendations of the Committee of Imperial Defence on the defence aspects of the question.

Mr. WALTER BAKER: 73.
asked the Postmaster-General the number of naval and military officers and the number of Post Office servants employed on the work of censoring wireless messages and cablegrams during the War, and the grounds on which the decision to remove the censorship from the offices of the cable companies to the Central Telegraph Office was taken?

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Mr. Duff Cooper): I have been asked to reply. So far as the censoring of cablegrams is concerned, the number of military officers and Post Office employés employed on the work in the middle of 1918 was 203 and 226, respectively. The only case in which censorship was removed from a cable company's offices to the Central Telegraph Office during the War was that of the
Great Northern Telegraph Company. I am not aware of the reasons which governed the decision in this isolated case. The censorship of wireless messages was under the control of the Admiralty, from whom I understand that the information asked for is not readily available.

Mr. BAKER: 74.
asked the Postmaster-General whether, and in what way, the contract with the Communications Company will secure that the company does not abandon or allow to depreciate parts of the cable and wireless services whose maintenance is required in the national interest in the event of war?

The ASSISTANT POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Viscount Wolmer): A Clause on this subject will be inserted in the Agreement, but the exact terms of the Clause have not yet been settled.

BEER DUTY.

Mr. DEAN: 49.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer, if, in view of the hardship that the high Beer Duty is to the workers in certain trades and agriculture while engaged on their work, he can hold out any hope of a reduction of this duty in the near future?

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Churchill): I am afraid that I cannot anticipate next year's Budget statement.

Mr. DEAN: In view of the de-rating of the brewers, and the large profits now made by them, can the right hon. Gentleman see his way, for instance, to induce the trade to reduce the price of beer to the consumer?

Mr. CHURCHILL: Even that very helpful question does not lead me to add to my answer.

NATIONAL DEBT (LOAN CONVERSION).

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: 50.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what will be the estimated increase in the face value of the National Debt on the assumption that all the present holders of Five per cent. and Four per cent. National War Bonds and Four-and-a-half per cent. Treasury Bonds which fall due for repayment on 1st February next ac-
cept the invitation to convert into the new Four-and-a-half per cent. Government Loan, and avail themselves in July next of the option to convert into stock of the Four per cent. Consolidated Loan?

Mr. CHURCHILL: On the assumption stated in the question, the increase in the nominal capital of the debt, after providing or the premiums on the Five per cent. National War Bonds, would be £23,750,000. On the other hand, there would on the same assumption be an effective saving of interest amounting to £440,000 a year. Out of this interest saving of £440,000 per annum about £150,000 per annum would be adequate to redeem the increase in the nominal debt in a period of 50 years.

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: In view of the likelihood of having to issue further stock for conversion purposes, and in view of the large financial opinion against these issues involving a considerable increase in the face value of the Debt, will the right hon. Gentleman consider, in future issues, a longer term security on a 4½ per cent, basis?

Mr. CHURCHILL: I shall be glad if the hon. Gentleman will put that question on paper, in order that I may keep all the different points in view at the same time.

COMMODITY PRICES.

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: 51.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether in view of the fall which has taken place during the last four years in the general level of wholesale commodity prices, he proposes to take any action, in concert with the financial committee of the League of Nations, with a view to assisting in the maintenance of greater price stability in the future?

Mr. CHURCHILL: As I have previously informed the hon. Member, the Council of the League has requested the Financial Committee to consider in what way the League of Nations could most usefully assist in the study of the problem of undue fluctuations in the purchasing power of gold. A wide measure of international co-operation would obviously be required before any action could be taken in the matter, and His Majesty's Government will await with interest any views
which the League of Nations or its Financial Committee may express on the subject.

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: Is the right hon. Gentleman doing what he can to promote this inquiry by the League and to give them every assistance in his power?

Mr. CHURCHILL: Yes, Sir.

Oral Answers to Questions — AGRICULTURE.

FOOT-AND-MOUTH DISEASE.

Mr. HURD: 52.
asked the Minister of Agriculture what further action he is taking to safeguard British herds, in view of the official statement that the outbreaks of foot-and-mouth disease in Devon and Dorset began in pigs that had been fed on swill containing scraps of meat of foreign origin?

The MINISTER of AGRICULTURE (Mr. Guinness): On the 19th November I informed my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Tavistock (Brigadier-General Wright) that the first animals affected in the Plymouth series of outbreaks were pigs which had been fed on swill containing scraps of meat of foreign origin. I have, however, made no such statement about the Dorset outbreaks, and no pigs were affected in these two cases. The Foot-and-Mouth Disease (Boiling of Animal Foodstuffs) Order, 1928, if properly observed, provides an effective means of preventing animals from becoming infected by any foot-and-mouth disease virus there may be in swill. I have recently asked local authorities, chief constables of counties and boroughs, and the National Farmers' Union to use every means at their disposal to bring again to the notice of persons concerned their obligations under this and other Orders, and I shall continue to do all in my power by prosecution of offenders and otherwise, to render the Orders effective.

RESEARCH.

Mr. FOOT MITCHELL: 54.
asked the Minister of Agriculture whether any decision has been reached to form a central bureau of Imperial research for agriculture; and, if so, whether he will give
some indication of the composition of the bureau and the nature of the work it will undertake?

The SECRETARY of STATE for DOMINION AFFAIRS (Mr. Amery): I have been asked to answer this question. Meetings of representatives of various parts of the Empire have recently been held in London to consider schemes for the establishment on an inter-Imperial basis of clearing houses for information on certain branches of agricultural science, as recommended by the Imperial Agricultural Research Conference. 1927. Since, however, the recommendations resulting from these meetings have not yet been received by the Governments concerned, I regret that I cannot give a detailed reply at present to my hon. Friend's question.

Mr. A. V. ALEXANDER: Is it intended to finance this arrangement from the Empire Marketing Board or from the Colonial Office?

Mr. AMERY: The various Governments will, I imagine, contribute, and the question of whether the Empire Marketing Board will also contribute is, no doubt, a point that will have to be considered.

PROBATE REGISTRY, ST. ASAPH.

Sir R. THOMAS: 55.
asked the Attorney-General if he is aware that great inconvenience will be caused in North Wales if the St. Asaph district probate registry is closed, and that it serves an increasing population and is doing an increasing business; and will he give careful consideration to the representations of the inhabitants of that part of North Wales?

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL (Sir Boyd Merriman): The reorganisation of the District Probate Registries throughout England and Wales is being conducted in pursuance of the Judicature Act, 1925. In view of the representations from North Wales to which the hon. Member refers, the President of the Probate Division has recommended to the Lord Chancellor that arrangements should be made whereby personal applications may be received at St. Asaph in an office provided for that purpose, by an officer of the Bangor sub-registry.

AIR SERVICES (WEST INDIES).

Sir R. THOMAS: 56.
asked the Secretary of State for Air whether he will consider means of initiating and developing the potential air route between North and South America via the West Indies, connecting up the numerous British island and continental possessions; and will he take early action in this matter in order to forestall foreign enterprise?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for AIR (Sir Philip Sassoon): The opportunities for civil air transport in the neighbourhood of the West Indies were fully considered last year by the West Indian Air Transport Committee, and I would refer the hon. Member to their Report, which has been presented to Parliament (Cmd. 2968).

Sir H. BRITTAIN: Does not the hon. Baronet realise that if we do not undertake this route in the very near future it will be carried out by the United States of America?

Sir P. SASSOON: Yes, but such services require a heavy subsidy, and as it will serve entirely local interests, the subsidy will have to come from local sources.

Sir H. BRITTAIN: Is not the linking up of a very important part of the British Empire an Imperial interest?

Mr. HURD: Seeing the imperative necessity of closer association between island and island, both in regard to sea and air travel, will not the Government give sympathetic consideration to any project which comes forward to attain that end?

Sir P. SASSOON: We will always do that.

Captain GARRO-JONES: Is the hon. Baronet aware that in Germany there has been built, for the London and South American service, a flying boat far larger and possessing a far higher useful load than anything which we possess, and has he taken any steps to assist British manufacturers to catch up on those lines?

Sir P. SASSOON: I do not think that arises out of this particular question.

Colonel WOODCOCK: Should not this scheme be part of the whole air scheme of this country?

Sir P. SASSOON: It does not affect these islands.

Oral Answers to Questions — UNEMPLOYMENT.

HOLLESLEY BAY LABOUR COLONY.

Mr. LANSBURY: 58.
asked the Minister of Labour the terms and conditions under which he proposes to take over the Hollesley Bay labour colony from the Central Unemployed Body, London, and what arrangements he proposes to make for dealing with unemployed London men suitable and willing to undergo training?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of LABOUR (Mr. Betterton): The proposal made to the Central (Unemployed) Body was that my Department, should take over the Hollesley Bay Colony as from 1st January, 1929, for use as an overseas training centre. The offer included the payment of a sum of money to enable the Central Unemployed Body to meet certain of its obligations and a substantial preference for London men in the allocation of training places.

Mr. LANSBURY: Will not the hon. Gentleman's Department take some steps to consult the authorities connected with this colony, in order to overcome the small difficulties that have arisen, and, if necessary, to get a special meeting of the Body, so that the transfer may take place, as everybody wants it to take place?

Mr. BETTERTON: The Central (Unemployed) Body have at the moment deferred consideration of the matter, but I will certainly represent to my right hon. Friend the view expressed by the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. LANSBURY: The only point is that it will be postponed for three months unless some action is taken by the hon. Gentleman's Department.

Mr. BETTERTON: I will represent that point of view to my right hon. Friend.

Mr. MARCH: Does not one of the difficulties arise because the substantial preference to London men is not sufficient? What is a substantial amount?

Mr. BETTERTON: I have a letter here which I will send to the hon. Gentleman, which sets out exactly what the position is. It is the letter written by my Department to the Ministry of Health, but I will put to my right hon. Friend the view expressed by the hon. Gentleman for Bow and Bromley (Mr. Lansbury).

COAL, TEXTILE AND ENGINEERING TRADES.

Mr. HAMMERSLEY: 59.
asked the Minister of Labour the average number, during the two calendar years 1926 and 1927, of unemployed insured men and women in the coal-mining industry, in the textile trades, and in the engineering trades, respectively; and the proportions of unemployed insured women to unemployed insured men in these three industries, respectively, over this period?

Mr. BETTERTON: It has not been possible in the time available to tabulate

MEN AND WOMEN 18–64 years of age insured under the Unemployment Insurance Acts and recorded as unemployed in Great Britain.


—
Cotton.
Woollen and Worsted.
All Industries.


Men.
Women.
Total.
Men.
Women.
Total.
Men.
Women.
Total.


(a) Estimated number insured at July, 1928.
182,720
324,670
507,390
90,710
129,870
220,580
7,907,000
2,747,600
10,654,600


(b) Average number recorded as unemployed.*
20.269
38,551
58,820
11,416
15,681
27,097
1,011,512
206,818
1,218,330


Ratio—numberof men to number of women.











(a) Numbers insured
100
177.7
—
100
143.2
—
100
34.7
—


(b) Number recorded as unemployed.*
100
190.2
—
100
137.4
—
100
20.4
—


* The figures represent averages for the three years 1926 to 1928 based on statistics for January and July of each year, except for 1926, when, in view of the effect of the coal mining dispute, July has been omitted.

APPROVED WORKS (GRANT.)

Lieutt.-Commander KENWORTHY: 60.
asked the Minister of Lancashire, and West Riding of Yorkshire municipal authorities at Manchester on 30th November, disapproving of the revised terms of grants offered in the circular letter of the Unemployed Grants Committee of

the information desired by my hon. Friend but I will circulate a statement in the OFFICIAL REPORT as soon as it is ready.

Dr. VERNON DAVIES: 62.
asked the Minister of Labour if he will furnish statistics showing, respectively, for the cotton-woollen textile industries and all industries taken together, the number of men over 18 insured; the number of women over 18 insured; the numbers in each of those classes unemployed; and the ratios between the figures relating to men and women, insured and unemployed, respectively, for half-yearly periods over the last three years?

Mr. BETTERTON: As the reply includes a number of figures, I will, with my hon. Friend's permission, circulate a statement in the 'OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is tire statement:

9th November, 1928, and urging the Government to reinstate the terms of grant which existed prior to December, 1925; and what reply he is sending?

Mr. HAMMERSLEY: 66.
asked the Minister of Labour whether, in view of the distress in the depressed areas, he will consider raising the terms of the grant offered by the Government towards the cost of approved works of public utility to the level of the terms which existed prior to December, 1925?

Mr. BETTERTON: The financial terms offered under the Unemployment Grants scheme prior to the circular letter of December, 1925, were not altered by that letter and remain available. What that letter did was to confine the grants strictly to areas with exceptional unemployment and to works substantially accelerated, and there appears to be no sufficient reason why a change should now be made in either of these respects. The new terms of grant specified in the circular letter of 9th November, 1928, are not applicable to areas with exceptional unemployment, and in no way alter the terms which are applicable to those areas.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the worst hit areas will feel these financial terms very oppressive, and will he have this matter reconsidered if I give him specific instances from, for example, my own constituency, where we find the proposal in the letter very oppressive for works of public utility in the district?

Mr. BETTERTON: That is not the question on the Paper. I cannot agree with the hon. and gallant Gentleman that these necessitous areas will find this letter oppressive.

Several HON. MEMBERS: rose
—

Mr. SPEAKER: That is starting a different hare.

TOBACCO INDUSTRY.

Mr. KELLY: 67.
asked the Minister of Labour the number of men and women registered as engaged in the tobacco industry, and the number of tobacco workers unemployed in October and November, 1928?

Mr. BETTERTON: The estimated numbers of insured persons, aged 16 to 64, inclusive, in Great Britain classified as belonging to tobacco, cigar, cigarette and snuff manufacture at July, 1928, were 13,030 men, 23,230 women and 5,730 juveniles. Of these numbers, 475 men, 991 women and 53 juveniles were recorded as unemployed at 22nd October, 1928. Figures for November are not yet available.

Mr. E. BROWN: Do these figures refer to wholly unemployed workers, or do they include short-time workers?

Mr. BETTERTON: They include both.

CHINA-CLAY INDUSTRY.

Mr. KELLY: 68.
asked the Minister of Labour the number of men registered as unemployed from the china-clay industry in October and November, 1928?

Mr. BETTERTON: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply which was given to him on 23rd April last.

Mr. KELLY: Will the hon. Gentleman tell me how I can get information from a reply which was given last April as to what happened in October and November?

Mr. BETTERTON: If the hon. Gentleman will look at the reply which I gave him on 23rd April, he will see that it is the only reply I can give him to-day.

QUARRYING INDUSTRY.

Lieut.-Colonel GADIE: 69.
asked the Minister of Labour the number of persons unemployed in the quarrying industry and the number of general labourers on the unemployment register for the year ending 31st December, 1927, and for the nine months ending 31st October, 1928, stating the cost in unemployment pay for the separate periods?

Mr. BETTERTON: It has not been possible in the time available to tabulate the information, but I will circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT a statement giving such information as is available.

INTERNATIONAL LABOUR OFFICE.

Colonel WOODCOCK: 65.
asked the Minister of Labour whether the £4,000 expended by the British Government as a gift to embellish the new building of the International Labour Office at Geneva has been expended; and the precise form upon which this special gift of money was spent?

Mr. BETTERTON: Yes, Sir. The money was spent upon the "decoration and furnishing of the room set apart for meetings of the governing body." I should add that the timber used in this work was presented by the Government of India.

Mr. WEDGWOOD BENN: Have the Government any sympathy with this campaign against the International Labour Office?

Colonel WOODCOCK: 63.
asked the Minister of Labour what countries are still in arrears with their annual contributions to the International Labour Department; and what are the amounts in each case?

Mr. BETTERTON: As the reply contains a Table of figures, I will, if I may, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Colonel WOODCOCK: Is any country more than one year in arrear, and have they full voting rights at the Conference?

Mr. BETTERTON: Some of these countries are more than one year in arrear. I must ask for notice of the second supplementary question.

Colonel WOODCOCK: Can they have proper voting powers?

Mr. BETTERTON: That is the question which I must ask my hon. and gallant Friend to put down.

Following is the Table:

The amounts outstanding on 31st August, 192S in respect of sums due to the International Labour Organisation from States members up to 31st December, 1927, were as follow:





Gold Francs.


Bolivia
…
…
168,414.86


China
…
…
2,097,931.92


*Guatemala
…
…
3,116.86


Honduras
…
…
53,815.67


Liberia
…
…
23,148.20


Nicaragua
…
…
53,815.67


*Paraguay
…
…
18,109.58


Peru
…
…
502,910.56


*Salvador
…
…
7,380.91


*In these cases part payment had been made.

Colonel WOODCOCK: 64.
asked the Minister of Labour the total expenses of the International Labour Office for the years 1923, 1924, 1925, 1926 and 1927, and the estimated expenses for the present year?

Mr. BETTERTON: As the reply contains a number of figures, I will, if I may, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the reply:

The figures of expenditure for the International Labour Office were in







Swiss Francs.


1923
…
…
…
…
7,275,832


1924
…
…
…
…
6,670,630


1925
…
…
…
…
7,070,280


1926
…
…
…
…
7,026,230


1927
…
…
…
…
7,659,399

The estimates for 1928 amounted to 7,958,470.

Oral Answers to Questions — POST OFFICE.

POSTAL CONFERENCE (COMMEMORATION STAMPS).

Captain CAZALET: 75.
asked the Postmaster-General whether he has yet decided in regard to the special issue of stamps next year in commemoration of the Postal Conference which is being held in London; and how many values of stamps will he issue?

Viscount WOLMER: It is proposed to issue a special series of postage stamps of the values of ½d., 1d., 1½d., 2½d., and £1.

Mr. HARRIS: Would not a more effective way of commemorating this conference be to reduce the 1½d. postage to 1d.?

TELEPHONE SERVICE.

Captain CAZALET: 76.
asked the Postmaster-General whether his attention has been drawn to the lack of telephone facilities at Goatacre, Wiltshire, and the difficulty and inconvenience to which the inhabitants of that village are placed in regard to telephonic facilities; and whether he will take steps to have an exchange box erected in that locality?

Viscount WOLMER: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative, and my right hon. Friend has offered to provide a telephone kiosk under a guarantee of £9 a year.

Captain CAZALET: In view of the fact that a guarantee of only £6 is at stake and of the very considerable profits made by the Post Office, can the Noble Lord see his way to meet the convenience of the people in this area?

Viscount WOLMER: If people would use the telephone six times a day, they would have to pay no guarantee.

Mr. MACKINDER: Is it right or fair to ask local authorities to guarantee anything in order to provide villages with the ordinary amenities, which they ought to have for safety and other needs?

Viscount WOLMER: If the local authorities did not pay the rent of the telephones, the loss would be borne by the other subscribers.

Mr. MACKINDER: Is the Minister aware that in the same locality there are telephone kiosks making a profit, and should not one balance another?

Viscount WOLMER: We work upon an approximate estimate of whether we think a telephone is going to be profitable. We do not think that it is fair to erect them at the cost of the ordinary telephone service.

Mr. HAMMERSLEY: 77.
asked the Postmaster-General if he is aware that it is proposed to disconnect Stockport telephone subscribers resident in Heaviley and Cale Green wards from the Stockport automatic telephone exchange and connect them to a new exchange of the manual type to be known as the Hazel Grove exchange; that this proposed change is resented by the subscribers; that it is a retrograde step involving the replacement of efficient automatic telephone communication by the old-type manual communication with all its delays and inconvenience; that it involves a discrimination between residents in one part of Stockport compared with residents in another part of the borough; that the main interests of these subscribers are in the town of Stockport; that Stockport residents residing in Cale Green and Heaviley requiring to telephone to the police or to the fire brigade, doctors to their patients or the infirmary, business men to their offices, and tradespeople to their customers, will have to make a trunk call; and will he have the matter examined and in the meantime give instructions that no subscriber enjoying the benefits of the Stockport automatic telephone exchange shall be removed therefrom?

Viscount WOLMER: The growth of the service has rendered it necessary to
divide the extensive area now served by the Stockport exchange and to provide a new exchange at Hazel Grove to serve that portion which lies outside the local fee area of Manchester. The provision of automatic equipment at the new exchange would involve prohibitive cost. When the new exchange is open, subscribers will be charged for their calls in accordance with the general tariff. Subscribers residing in Cale Green and Heaviley who will be connected to the new Hazel Grove exchange will pay a reduced rental and will only be charged one local call for a call to anyone connected to Stockport telephone exchange. A two unit call will be charged for calls to the central portion of Manchester. The delimitation of telephone exchange areas is necessarily determined by plant considerations and it not infrequently results that municipal and telephone boundaries do not coincide. There is no ground for apprehension that an efficient service will not be available.

Mr. HAMMERSLEY: Does the Noble Lord think that a policy which takes telephone subscribers from an automatic telephone exchange and puts them on to an old-fashioned manual exchange, and separates some residents in the same town from their telephone exchange, is a good method of developing the telephone service?

Viscount WOLMER: The Stockport automatic exchange is one of the older type of automatic exchanges and is not the sort that the Post Office now employs, and the manual exchange, we are advised, is the most economical method of arranging for the telephone extension in this area.

Mr. MARDY JONES: What is the cost of setting out this long question?

Mr. SPEAKER: Except for its length that consideration does not apply to this question more than to any other.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

Mr. RAMSAY MacDONALD: May I ask the Prime Minister if he can state what business it is proposed to take next week?

The PRIME MINISTER: Monday: The remaining stages of the Imperial Telegraphs Bill; Report stage of the
Superannuation (Diplomatic Service) Bill, and of the Appellate Jurisdiction Bill.
Tuesday: Motion to set up a time table for the remaining stages of the Local Government Bills.
Wednesday: Motion dealing with the Exchequer contributions under the Housing Acts.
In the event of the Motion allocating time for the Local Government Bills being passed by the House, Thursday will be the first Allotted Day in Committee on the English Bill.
The business for Friday will be announced later, and, if there is time on any day, other Orders will be taken.

Mr. MacDONALD: Would the Prime Minister say when the Motion to allocate time is to be put on the Paper?

The PRIME MINISTER: On Tuesday. The papers concerning it will be in the Vote Office to-morrow.

Mr. MacDONALD: When are we to know what the proposal is going to be?

The PRIME MINISTER: To-morrow.

Mr. MACPHERSON: May I ask my right hon. Friend whether he can conveniently state when it is proposed to take the Committee stage of the Local Government (Scotland) Bill, and whether the Committee stage of the English Local Government Bill will be finished before the Committee stage of the Scottish Bill begins?

The PRIME MINISTER: The only definite reply I can give to that is that the Scottish Bill will certainly not be taken in Committee this side of Christmas.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Is there any precedent existing for introducing what is called a Guillotine Motion before any progress has been made on the Committee stage?

The PRIME MINISTER: Of course.

Mr. BUCHANAN: Will the Government's Motion apply to the Local Government (Scotland) Bill as well as to the English Bill, or only to the English Bill? Is it the intention to give a separate Guillotine Motion for Scotland?

The PRIME MINISTER: It will apply to both Bills.

Mr. BATEY: Has the Prime Minister considered the setting aside of a day next week for the purpose of discussing the distress in the mining areas, in view of the Debate and the answer Which was given on behalf of the Government last night being so unsatisfactory?

The PRIME MINISTER: No, Sir.

Mr. MACPHERSON: Will the Prime Minister not reconsider his proposal to take the discussion as to the allocation of time for both the Bills on Tuesday. Is my right hon. Friend aware that there will be an equally long discussion on the Scottish Bill, and will he consider the advisability of giving at least another half-day to the discussion of the Scottish Bill?

The PRIME MINISTER: There is so much ground in common that in this particular case there is a great deal of convenience in taking the two together.

Mr. BATEY: Does the Prime Minister consider it more important to discuss the Bill giving pensions to the diplomatic service than to discuss the distress in the mining areas?

Mr. SHINWELL: On a point of Order, Sir. I would like to ask for your Ruling as to whether it is competent for the Government to introduce one time-table Motion for two separate Measures, the English Local Government Bill and the Scottish Local Government Bill. Does the existence of two separate Measures not involve two separate Motions about the allocation of time?

Mr. SPEAKER: That is not a matter for me; that is a matter for the Government and the Leader of the House.

Mr. SHINWELL: What is the competent method by which this question can be raised? Is it by putting a question to the Government, or by putting down a Motion, or by making a submission to yourself, Mr. Speaker?

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member can raise that point when the Motion comes on for discussion in the House.

Mr. SHINWELL: I wish to ask for your guidance, Mr. Speaker, on this question. How is it possible to raise this matter competently when the timetable Motion is before the House? Will it not be ruled out of Order?

Mr. SPEAKER: I should be sorry to give a Ruling in advance in regard to any Amendment which may be put down to the Motion. Of course, it is open to any hon. Member to put down an Amendment as soon as the terms of the Motion appear Oil the Paper.

Mr. E. BROWN: Will the Prime Minister state if, inside the terms of the Motion to be proposed on Tuesday, the Government propose to give an equal allocation of time for both Bills?

The PRIME MINISTER: That must depend on the course of business, and I have no control over that.

Mr. BROWN: Seeing that the Prime Minister has given notice to move a Motion applying the guillotine to both these Bills, ought not this House to know whether the time proposed is going to be equal in the case of both Bills?

Mr. SPEAKER: All these are matters for discussion when the Motion comes before the House.

Motion made, and Question put,
That other Government Business have precedence this day of the Business of Supply."—[The Prime Minister.]

The House divided: Ayes, 205; Noes, 131.

Division No. 25.]
AYES.
[3.55 p.m.


Albery, Irving James
Dean, Arthur Wellesley
Looker, Herbert William


Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.
Drewe, C.
Luce, Maj.-Gen. Sir Richard Harman


Applin, Colonel R. V. K.
Edmondson, Major A. J.
MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen


Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.
Elliot, Major Walter E.
Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)


Astor, Maj. Hn. John J. (Kent, Dover)
Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s.-M.)
McDonnell, Colonel Hon. Angus


Atholl, Duchess of
Erskine, James Malcolm Monteith
Macintyre, Ian


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Evans, Captain A. (Cardiff, South)
McLean, Major A.


Balniel, Lord
Everard, W. Lindsay
Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Malcolm


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Falle, Sir Bertram G.
Maitland, A. (Kent, Faversham)


Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.
Fermoy, Lord
Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel-


Beckett, Sir Gervase (Leeds, N.)
Forrest, W.
Makins, Brigadier-General E.


Bellairs, Commander Cariyon
Foster, Sir Harry S.
Margesson, Captain D.


Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)
Fraser, Captain Ian
Marriott, Sir J. A. R.


Bennett. A. J.
Gadle, Lieut.-Col. Anthony
Merriman, Sir F. Boyd


Berry, Sir George
Ganzoni, Sir John
Milne, J. S. Wardlaw-


Betterton, Henry B.
Gates, Percy
Mitchell, W. Foot (Saffron Walden)


Bird, E. R. (Yorks, W. R., Skipton)
Gault, Lieut.-Col. Andrew Hamilton
Monsell, Eyres. Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.


Boothby, R. J. G.
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Goff, Sir Park
Moreing, Captain A. H.


Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart
Grant, Sir J. A.
Nelson, Sir Frank


Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W.
Grattan-Doyle. Sir N.
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)


Braithwaite, Major A. N.
Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John
Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)


Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive
Grotrian, H. Brent
Nicholson, O. (Westminster)


Briscoe, Richard George
Guest, Capt. Rt. Hon. F. E. (Bristol, N.)
Nicholson, Col. Rt. Hn. W. G. (Ptrsf'ld.)


Brittain, Sir Harry
Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.
Nield, Rt. Hon. Sir Herbert


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Hacking, Douglas H.
Nuttall, Ellis


Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.
Hall, Capt. W. D'A. (Brecon & Rad.)
Oman, Sir Charles William C.


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C.(Berks, Newb'y)
Hammersley, S. S.
Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William


Buchan, John
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Penny, Frederick George


Buckingham, Sir H.
Harland, A.
Perkins, Colonel E. K.


Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James
Hartington, Marquess of
Perring, Sir William George


Bullock, Captain M.
Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)
Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)


Burman, J. B.
Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)
Power, Sir John Cecil


Burton, Colonel H. W.
Haslam, Henry C.
Pownall, Sir Assheton


Cautley, Sir Henry S.
Henderson. Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley)
Preston, Sir Walter (Cheltenham)


Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.
Price, Major C. W. M.


Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth, S.)
Henn, Sir Sydney H.
Radford, E. A.


Cazalet, Captain Victor A.
Hennesey, Major Sir G. R. J.
Raine, Sir Walter


Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)
Herbert, S. (York. N. R., Scar. & wh'by)
Rentoul, G. S.


Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)
Hills, Major John Waller
Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.


Charteris, Brigadier-General J.
Hilton, Cecil
Richardson. R. (Houghton-le-Spring)


Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spenser
Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar)
Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell


Churchman, Sir Arthur C.
Howard-Bury, Colonel C. K.
Ruggles-Brise, Lieut.-Colonel E. A.


Clayton, G. C.
Hume, Sir G. H.
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer
Salmon, Major I.


Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.
Hurd, Percy A.
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)


Cockerill, Brig.-General Sir George
Hurst, Gerald B.
Sandeman, N. Stewart


Colfox, Major Win. Phillips
Illffe, Sir Edward M.
Sanders, Sir Robert A.


Cooper, A. Duff
Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.
Sandon, Lord


Couper, J. B.
Joynson-Hicks, Rt. Hon. Sir William
Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.


Courthope, Colonel Sir G. L,
King, Commodore Henry Douglas
Savory, S. S.


Crooke, J Smedley (Derltend)
Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement
Shaw, R. G. (Yorks, W. R.. Sowerby)


Crookshank, Cpt. H. (Lindsey, Gainsbro)
Knox, Sir Alfred
Shaw, Lt.-Col. A. D. Mel. (Renfrew, W)


Culverwell, C. T. (Bristol, West)
Lamb, J. Q.
Sheffield, Sir Berkeley


Curzon, Captain Viscount
Lister, Cunliffe-, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip
Simms, Dr. John M. (Co. Down)


Davies, Sir Thomas (Cirencester)
Locker-Lampson, Rt. Hon. Godfrey
Skelton, A. N.


Davies, Dr. Vernon
Locker-Lampson, Com. O.(Handsw'th)
Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)


Davison, Sir W. H (Kensington, S.)
Loder, J. de V.
Smithers, Waldron


Spender-Clay, Colonel H.
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Stanley, Lord (Fylde)
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement
Wolmer, Viscount


Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H
Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. p.
Womersley, W. J.


Streatfeild, Captain S. R.
Wallace, Captain D. E.
Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley


Stuart, Crichton, Lord C.
Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.
Woodcock, Colonel H. C.


Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)
Warrender, Sir Victor
Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.


Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser
Waterhouse, Captain Charles
Wright, Brig.-General w. D.


Tasker, R. Inigo.
Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)



Templeton, W. P.
Watts, Sir Thomas
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Thorn, Lt.-Col. J. G. (Dumbarton)
Wells, S. R.
Major Sir William Cope and Mr. F. C. Thomson.


Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)
White, Lieut.-Colonel G. Dairymple



Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell
Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)




NOES.



Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Harney, E. A.
Salter, Dr. Alfred


Alexander. A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')
Harris, Percy A.
Scurr, John


Ammon, Charles George
Hayday, Arthur
Sexton, James


Baker, Walter
Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Burnley)
Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)


Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)
Henderson, T. (Glasgow)
Shepherd, Arthur Lewis


Barnes, A.
Hirst, G. H.
Shiels, Dr. Drummond


Barr, J.
Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)
Shinwell, E.


Batey, Joseph
Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)
Sinclair, Major Sir A. (Caithness)


Beckett, John (Gateshead)
Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose)
Smith, Rennie (Penistone)


Bellamy, A.
Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)
Snell, Harry


Benn, Wedgwood
John, William (Rhondda, West)
Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip


Bondfield, Margaret
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Stamford, T. W.


Briant, Frank
Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)
Stephen, Campbell


Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Kelly, W. T.
Stewart. J. (St. Rollox)


Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)
Kennedy, T.
Sullivan, J.


Buchanan, G.
Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M.
Sutton, J. E.


Buxton, Rt. Hon. Noel
Kirkwood, D.
Taylor, R. A.


Cape, Thomas
Lansbury, George
Thomas, Sir Robert John (Anglesey)


Charleton, H. C.
Lawrence, Susan
Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)


Cluse, W. S.
Lawson, John James
Thurtle, Ernest


Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.
Lee, F.
Tinker, John Joseph


Compton, Joseph
Livingstone, A. M.
Tomlinson, R. P.


Cove, W. G.
Longbottom, A. W.
Townend, A. E.


Dalton, Hugh
Lunn, William
Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles


Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale)
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Aberavon)
Viant, S. P.


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Mackinder, W.
Wallhead, Richard C.


Day, Harry
Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I.
Walsh, Rt. Hon. Stephen


Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.)
Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton)
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)


Funby, T. D.
March, S.
Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney


Garro-Jones, Captain G. M.
Maxton, James
Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah


Gibbins, Joseph
Montague, Frederick
Wellock, Wilfred


Gillett, George M.
Mosley, Sir Oswald
Welsh, J. C.


Gosling, Harry
Murnin, H.
Westwood, J.


Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Naylor, T. E.
Williams, David (Swansea, East)


Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.)
Owen, Major G.
Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)


Greenall, T.
Palin, John Henry
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)
Paling, W.
Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)


Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Griffith, F. Kingsley
Pethick-Lawrence, P. W.
Windsor, Walter


Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Ponsonby, Arthur
Wright, W.


Grundy, T. W.
Potts, John S.
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Hall, F. (York. W. R., Normanton)
Purcell, A. A.



Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)
Riley, Ben
Mr. Charles Edwards and Mr. Whitley.


Hardle, George D.
Roberts. Rt. Hon. F. O. (W. Bromwich)

STANDING COMMITTEES,

Ordered, That all Standing Committees have leave to print and circulate with the Votes the Minutes of their Proceedings and any amended Clauses of Bills committed to them.—[Mr. William Nicholson.]

WESTERN HIGHLANDS AND ISLANDS (TRANSPORT SERVICES) BILL,

Reported, without Amendment, from Standing Committee A.

Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

Minutes of the Proceedings of the Standing Committee to be printed.

Bill, not amended (in the Standing Committee), to be taken into consideration To-morrow.

SELECTION (STANDING COMMITTEES).

STANDING COMMITTEE A.

Mr. William Nicholson reported from the Committee of Selection; That they had added the following Fifteen Members to Standing Committee A (in respect of the Overseas Trade Bill): Mr.
Beckett, Sir Arthur Shirley Benn, Major Broun-Lindsay, Captain Garro-Jones, Mr. David Grenfell, Mr. Hacking, Mr. Hannon, Mr. Lindley, Mr. Lunn, Sir Frank Nelson, Sir Assheton Pownall, Mr. Remer, Mr. Arthur Michael Samuel, Mr. Sandeman, and Mr. Tinne.

STANDING COMMITTEE B.

Mr. William Nicholson further reported from the Committee; That they had discharged the following Members from Standing Committee B: Sir Robert Gower, Colonel Mason, Sir Frank Meyer, and Sir Cooper Rawson; and had appointed in substitution: Mr. Blundell, Sir Bertram Falle, Mr. Pilcher, and Commander Williams.

SCOTTISH STANDING COMMITTEE.

Mr. William Nicholson further reported from the Committee; That the following Members representing Scottish Constituencies are appointed to serve on the Standing Committee for the consideration of all Public Bills relating exclusively to Scotland and committed to a Standing Committee:—Mr. William Adamson, Brigadier-General Sir William Alexander, Duchess of Atholl, Mr. Barclay-Harvey, Mr. Barr, Mr. Wedgwood Benn, Sir George Berry, Mr. Boothby, Mr. Ernest Brown, Mr. James Brown, Mr. Buchan, Mr. Buchanan, Sir Samuel Chapman, Brigadier-General Charteris, Commander Cochrane, Sir Godfrey Collins, Mr. Couper, Mr. Cowan, Colonel Crookshank, Earl of Dalkeith, Major Elliot, Captain Fanshawe, Sir Patrick Ford, Sir John Gilmour, Mr. Duncan Graham, Mr. William Graham, Sir Robert Hamilton, Mr. Hardie, Mr. Thomas Henderson, Sir Harry Hope, Sir Robert Horne, Lieut.-General Sir Aylmer Hunter-Weston, Mr. Clark Hutchison, Sir Robert Hutchison, Mr. Johnston, Mr. Thomas Kennedy, Mr. Kirkwood, Major Broun-Lindsey, Mr. Livingstone, Major MacAndrew, Sir Murdoch Macdonald, Mr. Robert MacDonald, Mr. MacIntyre, Mr. Maclean, Mr. Macpherson, Mr. Macquisten, Mr. Maxton, Mr. Rosslyn Mitchell, Mr. Stephen Mitchell, Lieut. - Colonel Thomas Moore, Mr. Murnin, Mr. Scrymgeour, Lieut.-Colonel MacInnes Shaw, Dr. Shiels, Mr. Shinwell, Major Sir Archibald Sinclair, Mr. Skelton, Mr. Robert Smith, The Solicitor-General for Scotland, Sir Alexander Sprot, Mr.
Stephen, Mr. James Stewart, Captain Streatfeild, Mr. James Stuart, Mr. Sullivan, Mr. Templeton, Lieut.-Colonel Thom, Mr. Frederick Thomson, Mr. W. MacLean Watson, Mr. Weir, Mr. Welsh, Mr. Westwood, Mr. Wheatley, and Mr. Wright.

Mr. William Nicholson further reported from the Committee; That they had added the following Ten Members to the Standing Committee on Scottish Bills (in respect of the Agricultural Credits (Scotland) Bill): The Lord Advocate, Lord Balniel, Sir Henry Cowan, Mr. Hollins, Mr. Montague, Mr. Riley, Mr. Russell, Major Steel, Mr. Tomlinson, and Sir Godfrey Dalrymple-White.

Reports to lie upon the Table.

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.

That they have passed a Bill, intituled, "An Act to confirm a Provisional Order under the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899, relating to Perth Corporation." [Perth Corporation Order Confirmation Bill [Lords.]

Indian Affairs,—That they communicate that they have come to the following Resolution, namely: "That it is desirable that a Standing Joint Committee on Indian Affairs of both Houses of Parliament be appointed to examine and report on any Bill or matter referred to them specifically by either House of Parliament, and to consider with a view to reporting, if necessary, thereon any matter relating to Indian Affairs brought to the notice of the Committee by the Secretary of State for India."

PERTH CORPORATION ORDER CON- FIRMATION BILL [Lords].

Ordered (under Section 7 of the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899) to be considered To-morrow.

Orders of the Day — IMPERIAL TELEGRAPHS BILL.

Considered in Committee.

[Mr. JAMES HOPE in the Chair.]

CLAUSE 1.—(Sale of Pacific Cable undertaking.)

The CHAIRMAN: The first Amendment on the Paper—in page 3, line 23, at the beginning, to insert the words:
Subject to the provisions contained in the Schedule to this Act.
is not in order. With regard to the second and third Amendments—in page 3, line 23, to leave out the words "and on terms approved by," and in line 24, after the word "may," to insert the words
at a price to be approved by a resolution of the House of Commons
—they deal with the same subject.

Mr. WEDGWOOD BENN: I think you are under a misapprehension, if I may say so with very great respect. There are two separate subjects dealt with here. One is a body called a Communications Company and the other is an Advisory Committee. A reference to the Paper will show that these are two quite separate organisations. The first Amendment standing in my name and the names of other hon. Members relates to the Advisory Committee, some conditions concerning which I intended to set out in a Schedule. The second Amendment deals, as I understand, with the sale of the property and with the Communications Company, and my submission is that these are two quite separate subjects.

The CHAIRMAN: The second and third Amendments deal with the question of price, and if hon. Members like to move the first of those Amendments it may be for the convenience of the House to have a full discussion on the principle of the Clause on that Amendment. If any Members attach special importance to the third Amendment, we might have a Division upon it, but I hope the discussion will be upon the second Amendment.

Mr. BENN: When you said that they deal with the same subject, I thought
you were referring to the three Amendments. May I ask on what ground the first Amendment is out of order? It seeks to set out in the Schedule the conditions under which the Imperial Advisory Committee—

The CHAIRMAN: The objections are, first, that it would be inconvenient to deal with it in this way, because the same words would have to be repeated in each Clause, and, as far as that goes, the proper way to deal with that would be by some Clause to cover the three transactions contemplated in the Clause. In the second place, it fails on the ground of incompleteness, because it does not carry out the intentions of the authors, that is to say, the passage lays down conditions, but, as a matter of fact, as I construe the Schedule, the result would be that the transaction might be carried through, and then various things would come into operation afterwards; but there is nothing to prevent the transaction being carried through first, and there is no provision of resumption by the Board of its powers, if those conditions were not carried out. I think, also, without going into further details, some of the provisions are out of Order on merits.

Mr. BENN: The intention of this Amendment and other Amendments is to attempt to incorporate in the Bill some of the provisions we think important, and one is the constitution of this Advisory Committee. Therefore, if this new Schedule were moved as a new Clause, perhaps you would accept it.

The CHAIR MAN: I should have to see the Clause first. Some parts would be suitable for a new Clause; others would not.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I understand that certain of the five paragraphs in the proposed new Clause would be in order as a new Clause, and you would consider them?

The CHAIRMAN: I must not be taken as giving a binding ruling until I see the Clause as a new Clause. I think, however, paragraphs 1 and 2 would be in order.

Mr. BENN: On a further point of Order. I desire at some stage, probably when you put the Question, "That the
Clause stand part," to raise the question whether a Money Resolution is not necessary for this part of the Bill.

The CHAIRMAN: I am inclined to think that I should not agree with that. A Money Resolution is necessary when you are voting money—not when you are receiving money. From the Government point of view it is better to receive than to give. When they receive, no Money Resolution is necessary, and they avoid the special procedure.

Mr. BENN: If I do not disqualify myself by not raising it earlier, I propose to raise the matter when the Question is put, "That the Clause stand part."

The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member will, no doubt, be able to raise the question, but I doubt if he will receive a different answer. I may say that it may be for the general convenience of the Committee that a general discussion should be taken on this Amendment, and as regards the next Amendment a Division might be taken if it is desired. I take it that is agreed.

The POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Sir William Mitchell-Thomson): It will be the same principle in the case of the other Clauses.

Mr. WALTER BAKER: I beg to move, in page 3, line 23, to leave out the words "and on terms approved by".
I have already referred to this subject on three occasions, and it will not be necessary to go over the whole ground again, but I think it will be necessary to touch on some of the points already submitted. Yesterday, at the end of Questions, I asked the Prime Minister whether the statement of accounts of the Pacific Cable Board for the year ending 31st March, 1928, would be available for Members of this House for the discussion to-day. Until this morning I was under the impression that the conditions laid down in the Act of 1901 still held good as far as those accounts are concerned. It was only when, on application to the Vote Office this morning, I received the document for which I was inquiring, that I found that the accounts of the Pacific Cable Board had not been presented to Parliament, and that in the file containing similar documents there was no record
of such document having been received. That caused me to make inquiries, and I then found that whereas the Act of 1901 contained a provision making it necessary for the accounts of the Pacific Cable Board to be presented to Parliament, the consolidating Act, which received the Royal Assent on the 29th June last year, omitted that provision. I would respectfully ask whether the spokesman on behalf of the Government will explain to me and my colleagues exactly why it was that just before the calling of the Imperial Conference when, I am inclined to think, this subject was already exercising the mind and receiving the attention of the Government, this remarkable alteration should be made with regard to the necessity of presenting these accounts to Parliament.
If I may, I should like to congratulate the Committee upon the fact that the Postmaster-General, for the first time, has taken his rightful place with regard to this. Bill. Up to this point the gentleman responsible for the enormous business of telegraphic communications has been kept out of these discussions, and I think it will be a great advantage to the Committee to have his presence and his voice here this afternoon. I want, in the first place, to justify these Amendments by once more referring to the cost of the various cables which it is proposed to transfer to the Communications Company. As I understand it, the original cost of the Pacific Cable in 1902 was £2,000,000, that it was duplicated, the duplication being completed in 1926 at a cost of £2,720,000, and that the price to be paid by the merger is to be £517,000, plus the outstanding debt of £1,233,000. In passing, I would like to make a reference to that outstanding debt of £1,233,000 which is liable to an interest of 3 per cent., a figure at which the Communications Company, the Cable Companies and the Marconi Company are not able to borrow money. I have caused the price of the debentures of the Cable Companies to be examined, and I find that the return on those debentures is almost exactly 5 per cent. at the present moment. I would like to suggest that it is altogether unsatisfactory that the Communications Company should be permitted to hold a sum of money of this magnitude at 3 per cent., and that the difference between 3 per cent. and the 5 per cent. which they
would have to pay in the open market constitutes a gift to them which the actual figures do not reveal.
I understood the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, on the last occasion when the matter was under discussion, to speak as though the Pacific Cable Board had not been doing particularly well, and in those circumstances I would like once more to call attention to the latest figures which are given in the accounts for 1927–28. Although the traffic receipts of the Pacific Cables for 1927–28 were down by £80,000 as compared with the previous year—that is to say, as I explained on the last occasion, by about 17 per cent.—the expenditure was reduced by £32,000, they were able to devote £77,544 to the payment of interest and to the repayment of capital, they placed £10,000 to the reserve fund, and there was a surplus of over £42,000 remaining for division between the partner Governments. I want to endeavour to re-emphasise that point, since I regard it as being of major importance that, because Government undertakings have to repay their capital, they are being treated on an altogether different basis from concerns which raise the money for their business by the issue of shares, and which do not repay that capital, but merely pay dividends upon it. My information, which is supported by the figures I have just quoted, is that the Pacific Cable Board, unlike the privately owned cable companies, was not brought to a serious position by the beam competition. If I read paragraph 18 of the Conference Report aright, that is admitted in that Report.
Then we come to the Atlantic Cables. The first Atlantic Cable was taken from Germany under the Versailles Treaty. It was laid during the period 1900-1903, and I understand that there may be some doubts as to its value at the present moment. It appears, however, in the accounts of the Post Office at its original cost less depreciation, and the figure is £1,480,000. The second cable was laid in 1874, and was purchased for £570,000 from the Direct United States Cable Company, so that the cost of the two cables together was £2,050,000. I would ask the Postmaster-General particularly to observe this point, which I repeat for the information of the Committee, namely, that in the commercial
accounts presented by the Post Office, the depreciated value to the 31st March, 1928, is £770,000, and yet the merger is to have these cables for £450,000. If it be held that my point about the original cost of the Government-owned cables as compared with the privately-owned cables does not hold water so far as the Committee is concerned, I submit, nevertheless, that there should be a closer approximation between the price paid by the merger and the Communications Company and the figure at which they appear in the commercial accounts of the Post Office. As regards the West Indian Cables, they were originally laid in 1890, and have been supplemented at various dates up to 1924. The total capital expenditure has been over £364,000, and they are to be disposed of for £300,000. The actual fact is that cables which cost £7,134,797 are to be handed over for £2,500,000.
That is the Government side, and, in order that there may be no doubt on this occasion as to the accuracy of the figures which I am putting forward, I am going to attempt to summarise a quotation from the "Times," in order that we may see what the "Times" has to say with regard to the other side of the transaction. On the 2nd August, the "Times" City column contained a long statement on this subject. I am not giving the exact words, because I want to save the time of the Committee, but this is an attempt to summarise what the article contains. It is to this effect. The Communications Company will purchase the interest by an issue of its own shares, which will be held by the Eastern and Marconi Companies. The shares of the Eastern and Marconi Companies will be exchanged for shares in the merger, and the revenues of the Communications Company will pass to the merger company through the Eastern and Marconi Companies. Neither the cable nor the wireless companies will be wound up, as they will retain important businesses. The cable companies have large liquid funds, and those assets will remain, giving the companies the character of investment trusts—and, incidentally, I might say, extraordinarily strong investment trusts; and the Marconi Company will be left to carry on its manufacturing and other activities. Moreover, and this I regard as being the important part of the quotation, the
Marconi Company is to receive in shares from the merger company a sum of £17,350,000-£3,500,000 in 5½ per cent. cumulative preference shares, £8,000,000 in 7½ per cent., non-cumulative "A" ordinary shares, and £5,850,000 in "B" ordinary shares. The sum of £17,350,000 is to be divided among £2,277,414 of capital—that is to say, the Marconi Company, on the "Times" showing, with a capital of £2,277,414 divided between 10s. and £1 ordinary shares and £1 preference shares, is to receive over £17,000,000 in new share holdings in respect of its £2,277,000.
The "Times" goes on to say that clearly the terms must be acceptable to the majority of the ordinary shareholders, who hold the 10s. shares. But there is, surely, another aspect to be considered, quite apart from the question whether the 10s. shareholders will or will not regard this as a good bargain. The "Manchester Guardian" would lead one to suppose that the 10s. shareholders are by no means certain to regard this as equity. It may very well be that, despite the passage of this Bill through Parliament, the 10s. shareholders in the Marconi Company—who, I understand, are in a position to control a large majority of the votes at a general meeting —may consider that the way in which they have been treated in the past will not justify them in agreeing to go into this Communications Company and merger. But, whatever the 10s. shareholders in the Marconi Company may decide, I want to draw attention to the fact that when this merger was mooted the shares of the Marconi Company stood at nothing like their present figure on the Stock Exchange, but, after the most terrible speculation, after manipulation on the most astounding scale, the present market price of the whole of the Marconi shares is not equal to the amazing figure that this Government is prepared to let them have. As a matter of fact, if the lbs. shares are taken at the figure of £4, the £1 shares at the figure of £5, and the 7 per cent. preference shares at £5, the present market value of the Marconi undertaking is no more than £16,250,000; and yet we find, as I said a moment ago, that the Government are prepared to let them have over £17,000,000 in shares in this new company.
It seems to me to be most amazing and one of the strongest things that I have to say with regard to this transaction is that I consider that the Government should insist that the value of the Marconi Company should be the value of the shares prior to the commencement of this boom. The boom was engineered as a result of information which was obtained from the Imperial Conference by improper means. The Government have never attempted to deal with that; they have never attempted to deal with the fact that the "Daily Mail" gave prior information to persons who made huge fortunes as a result, and I challenge the Government once more to say why it is that papers like the "Daily Mail" and the "Evening News" are allowed to publish prior information, confidential information—

The CHAIRMAN: I am not quite clear how this is relevant to the particular transaction set out in this Bill. The Bill carries out a certain transaction, it may be as a result of various negotiations between the Government and other Governments—Dominion Governments and so on; but there is nothing in the Bill except certain cable undertakings in which the Government hold shares, and which are to be sold to the Communications Company. Probably the hon. Member has a relevant argument, but I want to hear it.

Mr. BAKER: I respectfully submit that my case against the sale is based on a large number of considerations, and one of those considerations is that an improper price is going to be secured by the Communications Company as a result of these transactions.

The ASSISTANT POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Viscount Wolmer): The Communications Company? Is it not the merger?

Mr. BAKER: The Noble Lord will forgive me if there is a muddle between the two terms. I want now to call the attention of the Committee to the fact that the Pacific Cable Board have large funds to which this Clause does not refer, and with which it does not deal. They have a Provident Fund, the balance of which on the 31st March was £172,000 odd. They have a Pension Guarantee Fund, the balance of which was £31,862
at the same date; and they have a Pension Fund, the value of which on the 31st March was £139,860. Perhaps the Postmaster-General will tell us what is going to be done with those funds, to whom they are to be transferred, who is to be responsible for their safe custody, and why it is that arrangements are not made in this Bill to deal with them.
I should also like to ask what steps have been taken to safeguard the position of the staffs of the cable and wireless services. Are they covered by funds built up as for the staff of the Pacific Cable Board? Perhaps we can be told what is the present staff at the moment who are affected by this Bill and exactly how they are allocated. I also want to ask for an assurance—and I think it is well that the Postmaster-General should be dealing with this matter, because he alone can give such an assurance—that the men in the Post Office Service who are indirectly affected by this transfer will not have their position prejudiced. Many men have been transferred to London and trained for service in connection with the beam system, and, as a consequence of the transfer of the beam system, they will either have to leave the Government service, which they have no desire to do, or find themselves redundant, with the possibility that their position and prospects may be very seriously prejudiced. I would ask the Postmaster-General to give very careful consideration to these men, and I would make a special appeal for a similar inquiry with regard to many Marconi men who are affected. I do not wish to detain the Committee longer at this point, but I would appeal once more to the Government to realise that there is a growing feeling that this is an unsatisfactory bargain, and that, even though the bargain cannot be stopped, it is essential that the Government should give us greater safeguards; and I rejoice to find that one of the most influential members on the other side of the Committee has tabled an Amendment, which is the first sign of life I have seen, indicating that the necessity for safeguards is beginning to be realised.

Mr. WELLOCK: The question that has been foremost in my mind from the start has been the inequality of treatment
between the Government holding on the one side and the private companies on the other. The first thing that strikes me in regard to the proposed transaction is that the Government should be paid for its holdings in cash whereas the private companies are to be given shares in the company. Why is that? Why should not the Government holdings, whatever they may be worth, be taken over in the form of shares in the same way as the Eastern Telegraph Company? Is that in order that we shall not have our requisite number of Directors on the Board, or is it that Members of the Government take an entirely different attitude to investments or property in the control of the State from what they do in regard to property in the control of private individuals?
I want to know the relative value of the property belonging to the State as compared with the property belonging to the Eastern Telegraph Company. I have not seen or heard so far what proportion of the £30,000,000 capital in the Communications merger is to he allocated to the Eastern Telegraph Company. From the quotation my hon. Friend read from the "Times" it would appear that £17,250,000, or thereabouts, of that £30,000,000 is to be allocated to the Marconi Company, and that would leave £12,000,000 and something odd to the Eastern Telegraph Company. Does that give the correct proportion between these two allocations and, if it does not, will the Government give us some enlightenment upon that question? If it does represent the actual situation I should like to see how the allocation to be made to the Eastern Telegraph Company compares with the attitude that is taken up towards the Government property. We have spent upon the three cables, the Atlantic £2,050,000, the West Indian £364,000, and the Pacific £4,720,000. The Financial Secretary on the Second Reading pointed to the fact that the Pacific cable was constructed out of the reserve fund, but that does not matter in the least. This reserve fund stands in exactly the same position as bonus shares in any company. We have spent actually £7,134,000 on the various cables I have named. If this had been in a private company in addition to the £7,130,000 there would have had to be additional capital for working
expenses and that would have made a total capital of something like £8,000,000 at the least.
For the whole of this property we are to receive a mere matter of £1,217,000 in cash and a debt, which is to be acknowledged, of £1,233,000 to be repaid on a basis of 3 per cent. If we take the total of £2,250,000, that is what we are to receive for an outlay of £7,134,000. It is true some of this plant has been in existence for quite a time. Nevertheless repairs are always going on, parts are being renewed, and the length of time these cables have been in service is no indication of the actual worth of the property at the moment. That figure of £7,134,000 has to be compared with the amount in the telegraph companies' capital that is concerned with cables. The total capital of the Telegraph Company is £9,000,000 and a portion of it is, of course, connected not with cables but with other concerns. If we come to the actual amount concerned with cables, we do not know how much that is, but it may be £7,000,000. So you have a comparable figure of £7,000,000 in the Eastern Telegraph Company devoted to cables and £7,134,000 of outlay by the Government. These two are fairly comparable figures and, so far as we have been able to ascertain from any figures given us by any authority whatever, the Government is to receive a total sum of £2,250,000 and the Communications Company is allocating, presumably, though I do not know—it may be £12,000,000 or £13,000,000 to the Eastern Telegraph Company. One would like to know if that is so, whatever the figure is, whether anything has been allowed for the appreciation in value of the Eastern Telegraph shares between, say, February and December of this year.
In looking up the prices of their shares I find about 12 months 'ago, on 9th and 21st December, they were quoted at 147, in January at 146, and on 23rd February 141. I chanced on these dates. They are not selected at all. A few days ago they were quoted at 253, so that there has been an appreciation of £100 on a £100 share since February last. I want to know how much of that appreciated value has been reckoned in this £30,000,000 for the Communications Company. We are entitled to know these things, because it seems to me to be nothing more nor less than day-
light robbery. These people have come in to save their skins. They have not only saved their skins, but they have skinned the Government and the country. We cannot tolerate the Bill going through unless we know very much more about the financial facts of the situation than we do at the moment. For these reasons I very strongly support the Amendment.

Commander BELLAIRS: I desire unreservedly to congratulate the Government on the acceptance of the Report of the Imperial Commission on this matter, 'and also to congratulate the Secretary of State for Scotland and the Financial Secretary to the Treasury for the able Report that Commission brought in. The first case of Government ownership of cables was when we laid the Pacific cable, and our position prior to that was one of complete supremacy. The moment the Government entered the field the downfall of British cable supremacy began. In 1896, the French Budget Commission reported that British cable supremacy forced all the extra-European nations, and those of Europe also, to pay tribute to England. The moment we had this Government competition none of the cable companies felt secure, and the Government did one thing that no private cable company would do. They laid a cable with the longest span in the world. It made the cost of cabling very much greater and the speed much slower.
I was the only naval officer to give evidence before the Pacific Cable Commission in 1900, and I stated at the time that the result of the Government entering the ownership of cables would be not only the downfall of British cable supremacy, but that that cable, if it went to Fanning Island away from the commercial route that goes to Honolulu, would be the only British cable cut when war broke out, and it was the only British cable cut. The Commission acknowledged that if the cable were laid to Honolulu there would be a very material reduction in the charges of interest and sinking fund, and the capital required would be less. The result of the Government holding the ownership of just a few cables was that they maintained a cable ship at great expense, and during the whole of 1927, as you will see from this Report, it was only engaged on three minor repairs. It would be infinitely better to have one company holding all
the British cables. I prophesy with some confidence that everyone will see in the course of a few years that this project of the Government is a magnificent success. What the Opposition fear is that it will lead to fresh demands for private enterprise to step in.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: It is refreshing to find the hon. and gallant Gentleman coming to the support of the Government on this matter, if only because he gives at least one cogent reason why the scheme will lead to economy and efficiency. Apparently we are going to be left with only one cable repairing ship for the whole of the cables of the new merger. I am astonished that he should not see, as a naval officer, the danger of having no repairing staff except this one ship, which might be torpedoed.

Commander BELLAIRS: There are the cable ships owned by the other companies.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: The hon. and gallant Gentleman made out that it is no use having a number of cable ships, because there is not enough work for them, and he insisted, therefore, that you must only have one. [Interruption.] II., is no use hon. Members making animal noises. I am giving a cogent argument. You will disperse, on grounds of economy and the making of profits for shareholders, an irreplaceable skilled body of seamen trained up in repairing cables. I am astonished to find the hon. and gallant Gentleman advocating such a thing. However, I would rather have his views than those of the right hon. Baronet the Member for Walthamstow East (Sir H. Greenwood). He made a very interesting speech on the Second Reading and walked out of the House and has not been back since. He did not even come back to hear what the Minister had to say. The hon. and gallant Gentleman, however much I disagree with his views, is at any rate taking a continued interest in it and is, therefore, entitled to speak.
My hon. Friends are objecting to this bargain because it is too unfavourable to the State. It is true we are getting nominally a sum of money which is apparently going to come into the revenue, but we are handing over assets that are worth
very much more. Under this Clause sums of money are going to be paid to the Treasury and will, therefore, go to balance next year's Budget. The hon. and gallant Member for Ripon (Major Hills), who I see in his place, is a financial authority. Does he approve of selling Government assets—never mind for a moment about the price—and putting the realisation of the sale of those assets to current account?

Major HILLS: Certainly; that is always done.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Does it make it any better? That was the practice of the Coalition Government which the hon. and gallant Gentleman assisted in destroying. It was their ridiculous custom after the War in selling War stores, but we have passed the War period now. We are selling public assets, and the proceeds are going to be used to balance the Budget, and enable the Chancellor of the Exchequer to make some sort of remission in view of the General Election.

Major HILLS: May I answer the hon. and gallant Gentleman? We pay capital charges out of income, and we put capital receipts to income, because of the simple fact that we have no capital account, and for very good and excellent reasons.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I think they are very bad reasons. Of course, it is a capital asset., arid if the hon. and gallant Gentleman was on any Board and such a proposal came before that Board, it would only be carried over his dead body. I know enough of his business acumen to know that he is driven to this ridiculous argument because he has to support this indefensible proposition of the Government. Coming to the question of price, I am not going over the figures. They have been dealt with over and over again in this House by my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol East (Mr. W. Baker), and have never been answered. I think that his figures should have made the most stalwart supporter of the Government squirm. I am going to quote a piece of evidence from an irreproachable source. Briefly my hon. Friend's case is that something like £7,250,000 worth of property is being handed over for half a million in cash, and a million-and-a-third in debentures.
Let us see the result of this on the Stock Exchange. I hold in my hand a cutting from the "Evening Standard" of 27th June when the information began to leak out, when those in the know began to get confirmation of private information.
The announcement of the Government's decision is awaited with the greatest interest not only in this country but also throughout the Empire.
It is from the City Correspondent of the "Evening Standard," and he is not attacking the Government, and the paper is not attacking the Government, at any rate, on this occasion. I will leave out a good deal of explanation with which I need not trouble the Committee, because lion. Members are familiar with the matter. It goes on to say that the new combine
is in a position to make a large cash offer for the Post Office external telegraph system, and for any independent concerns which could be operated more successfully by the combine. Expectation of an imminent announcement of the Cabinet's approval brought in further buyers of wireless and cable shares to-day, and active dealings took place in the stocks and shares of the company's concerns.
Now this was on the announcement of the Government's decision and shows the dimension of the leaking out of information.
Eastern Telegraph stock following yesterday's rise to £223 10s. soared 19 points further, to £242 10s. Eastern Extensions and Westerns were also buoyant, Easterns putting on 2¾, to 24. Westerns went to 24¼. Marconi shares resumed their overnight advance with a rise of Is. 9d. to 67s. 9d., while Marconi Marines appreciated 6d. to 47s. 6d. Radio Corporations were £1 higher at £36.
No wonder the Postmaster-General referred to himself yesterday as being an unhappy Postmaster-General. The Secretary of State for Scotland was the father of this little deal, and what the City thinks of the Secretary of State for Scotland, the Stock Exchange shows us in some of the things I have read out. The skinning was good, and they went on with the skinning and the killing, and the killing is not over yet. That was only one example which I kept at the time, and I think it shows better than any evidence that we can bring from this side that the Government must have made an extraordinarily bad bargain for such a phenomenal and sensational rise in the shares of these companies to take
place. What is the Government's object with regard to this scheme if they say that this business was all above board and perfectly honourable to both sides? Of course, I do not impeach their personal honour in this matter. How do they account for the fortunes which must have been made by fortunate speculators on the Stock Exchange who had private information of what was going to happen?
How does the Postmaster-General like it? It is not a question of handing over a Government property to private enterprise. We say that the price and the bargain are inequitable, unfair and unjust to the taxpayer. That is our position; that is our case. I await with great interest what the Postmaster-General may have to say in the matter. I think that my hon. Friend the Member for East Bristol was a little premature in his pleasure at seeing the Postmaster-General on the bench opposite. We have not heard a word from the Postmaster-General in debate yet. The matter has been left exclusively in the hands of the Secretary of State for Scotland and the Financial Secretary to the Treasury. I am no; sure that we are going to have the Postmaster-General now, but I hope we shall. I hope we shall also hear from the Noble Lord the Assistant Postmaster-General. They should have been in charge of this Debate from the beginning and responsible for safeguarding the taxpayer and the public interest. If they were not content with the bargain, they have no right to continue to hold their positions. If the Postmaster-General approves of this bargain, I hope he will explain why he approves of it, or how he accounts for it if he is not satisfied. He ought to stand by the State and State enterprises that have been successfully brought to profitable development by his servants, and not desert them.
Finally, I want to answer the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Maidstone (Commander Bellairs), who spoke of the strategical and Imperial aspects of this business, by quoting what the Prime Minister said in 1923:
It is necessary in the interest of the national security that there should be a wireless station in this country capable of communicating with the Dominions and owned and operated by the State.
What has happened since 1923 to alter that view of the Chairman of the Com-
mittee of Imperial Defence? I will tell the Committee what has happened. The beam wireless system was made a success. That is what has happened. Competition was felt by the cable companies. [Interruption.] Perhaps my hon. Friends below the Gangway will bear with me for a moment, because they voted for the Bill, and I hope they are going to repent and vote for our Amendment. The cable companies came to the Government and said: "We cannot go on. We are not making money. We are going into liquidation, and will probably be bought up by Americans." If there is a different aspect of this, perhaps the Postmaster-General will say so. The usual Cabinet Committee was set up and the Secretary of State for Scotland put in charge of it—I do not know what action the Postmaster-General has taken—and then we get this bargain which the Government say is a good one. The answers to that have been found in the Stock Exchange manipulations which have taken place. We say that this whole thing is a disgraceful, an impeachable ramp. The days of impeachment have gone by, but I hope that the matter will be brought home to the Government, and that the public will visit them with the only punishment that the taxpayers for their own protection can inflict upon them.

Major-General Sir ROBERT HUTCHISON: I expressed my views on the whole proposition on the Second Reading of the Bill, and I am still unconvinced that the views which I then expressed are wrong. I am one of those who believe that, owing to the success of the beam system, our cable systems were in process of being squeezed out. Anyone who knows what happened during the War realises that it is vital to the interests of this country that cable communication with the various parts of our own Empire and the world should he preserved from the point of view of secrecy and from every point of view. Therefore, it was obviously up to the Government to see in what way they could preserve this form of communicating with the rest of the Empire. There were two ways in which this could be done. One was by the Government taking over the whole service, including the putting down of cash to buy the various cable companies and the wireless. The other is the pro-
cess which they are now proposing to pursue. I believe that the present arrangement is, in the interests of the people, the best way of carrying out the preservation of our cable communications.
I am not one of those who believe that the bargain that the Government are making at the present moment is a bad one, and for this reason. However much we may deplore the loss of capital, we have come down to actual present-day values. If we take the balance sheets of the various companies in this country to-day, we shall find values which are out of all proportion to their earning capacity. You get values on the money spent in buildings, plant and other things which are of no earthly use to businesses to-day. It is exactly the same with the cable companies. They have plant there which, from the point of view of the economic value in the market, has no relation to its present value. Therefore, you have to look at the actual value of these cables, which have been very closely scrutinised by other Governments as well as our own. I am not at all sure that the present company who are taking over this business are really paying real value. I doubt very much whether these cables are worth what they arc paying for them with the beam wireless so efficient and growing more efficient. But the fact remains that we who hold these views believe that the preservation of our cable service is vital to this country. I have not been disturbed in that view after all the various speeches I have heard in this House on this subject. I venture to say that the actual Stock Exchange manipulations of the values of shares such as Marconi shares and the Eastern and Western Telegraph shares have very often proved to be wrong. It is quite within recent recollection that in regard to the Duophone Company, about which a question was asked in the House the other day, that company's shares a short time ago were in the market at £4 10s., while to-day they are worth only a few shillings. It shows that speculators who rush in to buy these shares very often get left with the baby. Perhaps on the bargain made by the Government, those who bought the shares on these terms will discover that the rate of interest on their capital expenditure is somewhat small. Whatever may he the
opinion of hon. and right hon. Members above the Gangway, I believe that the Government, on the whole, are putting forward the best proposition, and I shall certainly support them.

5.0 p.m.

Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: It will perhaps be convenient if I say something at this stage on some of the general questions which have been raised in the Debate. I can assure the hon. Member for East Bristol (Mr. W. Baker) and the hon. and gallant Member for Central Hull (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy), that the reason why I have not taken any part in the Debates on this question was not because desired to withhold any information. On the contrary, I have been and always shall be willing to give all the information I can to enable hon. Members to come to a sound conclusion. The only reason why I have not taken part in the Debates on this subject was that those who were best qualified to explain matters were the two members of the Government who were themselves members of the Conference. I should like to stress the word "conference" because the hon. and gallant Member for Hull, no doubt quite unwittingly, rather scoffed at this body as a Cabinet committee. I beg him and the Committee to realise that it was in the fullest sense of the word an Imperial Conference, composed of delegates fully accredited by their respective Governments and sitting as the representatives of their respective Governments.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: We were told at an earlier stage—I cannot recollect the exact date—that this decision was taken by a Cabinet Committee presided over by the Secretary of State for Scotland. That is how I fell into the error.

Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: The recommendations were put forward by the Imperial Conference. I stated that to the House when I first announced that the body was going to meet. I was then asked if it was going to be a Committee, and I said that it would be an Imperial Conference. It was an Imperial Conference. What has happened so far as this House is concerned is, that the recommendations of the Imperial Conference have been accepted by His Majesty's Government in Great Britain.
That is the constitutional position in which the Committee finds itself to-day. Perhaps it may be convenient if I try to clear up one or two general matters on which I think there is genuine misconception on the part of hon. and right hon. Members opposite. I should like, first of all, to correct an impression which was left, perhaps unwittingly, by the Leader of the Opposition when he spoke on the Second Reading. He rather led the House to infer that the system of the beam was something which had been successfully pushed on by his Government in the teeth of opposition by experts in this country. I am not sure that he did not go so far as to say that the opposition was by Post Office experts. I am not sure on that point, but certainly he led us to believe that it was pushed on by his Government in the teeth of expert opposition. My right hon. Friend the Member for Waltham-stow East (Sir H. Greenwood) certainly went a good deal further than that. That is a complete perversion of the history of the matter. What actually happened was—

The CHAIRMAN: It appears to me that the beam system can only be referred to as affecting the question whether this sale was or was not a good one. I can understand that it may have some effect on the assets of the cable companies, but I think that is as far as it is relevant.

Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: That ruling makes the position a little difficult. I should like to have a ruling for my guidance. Do I understand that any discussion as to the terms on which the beam is to be leased to the Communications Company will be outside the scope of the discussion?

The CHAIRMAN: Yes, I do so rule. It is in order to refer to the success of beam wireless as influencing the value of the assets. That is as far as we can go.

Mr. AMMON: The difficulty is that this transaction would never have taken place and there would be no value at all in it if it was not for the beam wireless, which gives it its value.

The CHAIRMAN: I do not think that has convinced me. Of course, I am open to be convinced if any hon. Member can connect that line of argument with these
sales in the course of his speech. On the face of it, we are concerned only with cables, and other considerations must be related to that.

Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: Hon. Members opposite will probably agree with me that this ruling places the Committee in a position of some difficulty, because if I apprehend their attitude rightly, what they are objecting to is not so much to the sale of the cables, although they do object, but to the action which the Government propose to take in regard to the beam wireless service. If, therefore, we are placed in this position that our action, which I am thoroughly prepared to justify, is not to be discussed, it leaves us with rather an incomplete ending to our deliberations. However, perhaps we can raise the matter when we get to Clause 4. Meantime, perhaps I shall be allowed to make one reference, because I think an injustice has been done to the service by some of the things that have been said. I have read the report of the chief wireless expert of the Committee, which was made to the Government of the right hon. Gentleman opposite, and it contains a remarkably accurate forecast of what would be the effect of working the beam system.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Is he a Government servant?

Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: He was the chief wireless adviser to the Government, Dr. Eccles. I will leave that matter and approach again the general question. The discussion has ranged over very much the same ground as the discussion on the Second Reading. The Second Reading discussion was summed up accurately, as always, by the right hon. Member for Central Edinburgh (Mr. W. Graham). He said that he admitted the alternatives which the Conference suggested for dealing with the problem. He further said: "We all admit that there is a problem. I have looked at the alternatives. I dismiss the idea that you can sit still and do nothing. You cannot sit still and let the cable companies go out of existence. I dismiss the policy of subsidy as equally objectionable. You are left with the policy of fusion, but you have adopted the wrong line or, rather, the Conference
have made a mistake and have recommended the wrong kind of fusion. The fusion which they ought to have recommended was fusion under Government control instead of fusion as put forward by the Government." That, I think, sums up the views of the right hon. Gentleman and I should like to say a few words in regard to them.
If right hon. Members opposite had found themselves sitting on this Bench and holding the offices which we hold, without arguing the question of whether that view was right or wrong, they would have found themselves unable to carry out the policy which they desire. Let them remember that this is not a matter which His Majesty's Government in this country can consider by themselves. Had right hon. Gentlemen opposite been sitting here they would have found themselves in this position that their views on this question did not coincide with the views of the Governments of the Dominions. In these circumstances, the course which the right hon. Member for Central Edinburgh suggests is practically out of the question. Even supposing the Governments of this country and of the Dominions had been, more or less, agreed in the view that fusion under Government control was something which was desirable to try to achieve, it would have been very difficult to achieve it in the face of the provision which was inserted by the Government of the party opposite when they were in power in the agreement with the Marconi Company. I will deal with that more fully if the opportunity occurs later. Meantime, I would invite the hon. Member for Camberwell, North (Mr. Ammon), to study Clause 19 of the Agreement for the setting up of the beam stations, and if he reads that he will perceive what a difficulty there was in the way of achieving any system of fusion under Government control.
As regards the actual terms of the Amendment, and the method under which it is proposed to carry out this transaction, perhaps I might explain to the Committee, because I think there is some misapprehension, that there is no question of having one contract, to be concluded by the Postmaster-General or anyone else. I was asked yesterday, who was going to make the contracts transferring Post Office property. The obvious answer
was that in such a case nobody but the Postmaster-General could be responsible, because the property is vested in him. In order to achieve the transfers which are contemplated in this Bill, a long series of different agreements will be necessary. It is obvious that there will have to be at least five main agreements. There will have to be an agreement by the Pacific Cable Board for the sale of the Pacific cables. There will have to be an agreement by the Pacific Cable Board for the sale of the West Indian cables. There will have to be an agreement by the Postmaster-General for the sale of the Imperial cables. There will have to be an agreement by the Postmaster-General for the lease of the beam wireless service, and there will have to be a licence by the Postmaster-General to the Communications Company, which is to be formed to work the system. I am not prepared to say at this stage what other agreements there may be. I have no knowledge of what agreements there may be concluded between the Dominion Governments and the wireless or cable companies operating in realms under their control, but I can and do say that as far as His Majesty's Government in Great Britain are concerned, when the agreements which we make and for which we are responsible to this House have been concluded, they will be laid on the Table, and it will then be open to the Opposition if, after seeing the terms of the agreements, they are not satisfied with the terms, to adopt their proper Parliamentary remedy and to move a Vote of Censure upon His Majesty's Government.
It, is an entirely new doctrine to me, and I have sat in this House for a good many years now, that His Majesty's Government have to get the prior approval of the House of Commons before they dispose of Government property. That is a new and, if I may say so, a rather vicious doctrine. This particular transaction, even putting it at the highest figure which hon. Members opposite have put upon it, is a mere bagatelle to the transactions which have taken place in the past without the prior approval of the House of Commons. I do not know what was the value of the ships which were sold by the Government, but I think it was not less than £60,000,000 or £70,000,000.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: You did not repeal legislation then.

Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: We are coming to the House of Commons for the repeal of legislation. We are doing that in this Bill. If I understood hon. Members opposite rightly, their great ground of complaint is that all the information, all the details of the contracts were not before them and that the Government did not get the prior approval of the House of Commons before the contracts were entered into. Really that is neither constitutionally right, nor is it practicable. It is not possible to enter into contracts and agreements because there is nobody in existence with whom contracts can be made. The Bill provides that if the Communications Company is constituted then contracts or agreements will be made with it, and, as I have said, when they are made they will be laid on the Table of the House. If hon. Members opposite do not like the terms of any of these contracts it is for them to move a Vote of Censure on the Government for having made them. I do not think I can say anything fairer than that. The very proper point was made by the hon. Member for North Aberdeen (Mr. Benn) in regard to the question of contracts, that there may be a contingency under which one of the clauses of a suggested agreement might conceivably be found to impose a charge on the State for the rental of certain portions of a station for telephonic purposes. I should like to have said something about telephony at a later stage but I have grave doubts whether telephony is in order seeing that the beam wireless is not in order—

The CHAIRMAN: As far as I can see it is not in order.

Sir W. MITCHELL - THOMSON: Therefore, this particular contract to which the hon. Member referred, if it is ever made, will be a separate contract and will be laid before the House of Commons separately under the Standing Order. None of the other agreements can come under Standing Order 72, and hon. Members opposite have the right to ask the Government the question: Are you satisfied, and how are you satisfied, that the prices which are going to be Secured by the Post Office for these various assets, which are being disposed
of, are fair prices? I suggest that we should deal with these other items separately; that in this Amendment we should deal with the Pacific cable; in the next Clause with the price of the West Indian cable and afterwards with the price of the Imperial cables. In these circumstances I hope the Committee will allow my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary to the Treasury to deal with the question of the price for the Pacific cable and the West Indian cable as these particular cables have never been the direct concern of the Post Office. In so far as His Majesty's Government are concerned, they have been administered for many years by the Treasury, and it was not until last year that the Post Office had any representation on the Pacific Cable Board. Therefore, my hon. Friend will deal with the question of the price for these two cables, and I shall be prepared to justify fully the price we are receiving for the Imperial cables which the Post Office has at the present time.
I must really say a word or two in reply to the speech of the hon. Member for Bristol East (Mr. W. Baker). He gave vent to the most wild and whirling allegations of corruption, and went so far as to say that money had been made by information improperly obtained through members of the Imperial Conference. Really, I do not think he has any right to use that sort of language either in public or in this House without some justification for it. Everybody knows that there is intelligent anticipation and unintelligent anticipation on the Stock Exchange. Sometimes the people on the Stock Exchange guess right, sometimes they guess wrong, but they will always guess, but the Government have no sort of responsibility for the speculating which goes on. At any rate, I am certain that no leakage took place through any member of the Imperial Conference, and standing here as one of His Majesty's Ministers, I must take the earliest possible opportunity of repudiating that suggestion.
The hon. Member also went into a good deal of detail with regard to the question of the possible allocation of capital as between the Marconi Company and Eastern Telegraph Company. All these matters affect the capitalization
and creation of the Merger Company, and for that His Majesty's Government in Great Britain and the Dominion Parliaments have no responsibility, and take no responsibility. The body with whom we deal is the Communications Company. For that capitalisation we take responsibility, for the standard revenue we take responsibility; but all these other matters are completely out of the control of His Majesty's Government and, indeed, out of the control of Parliament. Parliament cannot be asked to determine the respective rights of one class of shareholder as against another. The only way that could be done would be by a private Bill, and if you attempt to legislate on that subject you will have competing claims at once set up. These matters cannot be included in the discussion in This Committee; with them we have no concern. Hon. Members are barking up the wrong tree when they talk about Stock Exchange movements and the capitalisation of this or that company. The one company with whom we are concerned is the Communications Company, and as to that we are perfectly prepared at the proper time to defend the figures which appear in the Report.

Mr. W. BAKER: Do I understand the right hon. Gentleman to say that as this legislation has been introduced and the Merger formed in order to save the cable companies, it is no concern of his as to what are the resulting financial commitments?

Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: The hon. Member suffers from a constitutional inability to put his case correctly. The Merger Company has not been formed. In the Report he will see that it is in contemplation of formation, and I gather from the hon. Member's speech that he thought it was quite possible there would be great difficulties in the way because of the several classes of shareholders.

The CHAIRMAN: I do not think the Merger has anything to do with this Clause whatever.

Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: That is precisely what I was trying to point out to the hon. Member. I probably failed to make it quite clear, but in the hope that you, Mr. Chairman, have suc-
ceeded I will leave the matter there. If it is the wish of the Committee my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary at a later stage will deal specifically with the question of the price allotted in the case of the transfer of the Pacific Cable Board.

Mr. BENN: I am sure that everyone who has participated in these debates will be glad that the Postmaster-General, who is always so well informed and so courteous, has taken charge of this matter. I do not wish to pass any reflection on other hon. Members opposite, but I think he is the proper Minister to answer on a matter which we consider is primarily the concern of the Post Office. I accept his assurance that he is under no vow of silence in this matter. What is his defence? His defence is that the House of Commons has no control because other Dominion Governments have settled the question. That is not a satisfactory defence. It is no defence to say: "What is the good of criticising, you have to remember that this is an Imperial matter." It is perfectly true that we have to take into account the wishes of other members of the Commonwealth, but it is not a sufficient defence to a transaction merely to brush it aside by saying that Parliament has no control over it. The Noble Lord the Assistant Postmaster-General I know looks with a complacent smile on the disposal of Government property because he declares that Government Departments and Ministers are not the most competent people to carry on an enterprise, and, speaking for himself, he is quite justified in that view. But it is not a sufficient defence merely for the Postmaster-General to say that other Governments are concerned. He has to defend British interests in this matter, and it is on that point that we should like more information.
One of the most surprising things in the Report of the Imperial Conference is this: They set out five possible courses, and the fifth is fusion. There are two kinds of fusion, as the right hon. Member for Central Edinburgh (Mr. W. Graham) pointed out; fusion in a private concern and fusion in a public concern, but this Report never takes into account at all a possible public fusion. It treats fusion as though it means fusion in a private concern. Hon. Members opposite may
consider that private enterprise is preferable to public control, but in a matter like this I think we should have had some guidance from the Conference as to why they considered fusion under public control was not wise or expedient. As a matter of fact, Government policy has differed a great deal. First of all we started on the basis of public control. Mr. Bonar Law turned it on to a private basis. The Labour Government turned it on to a public basis, and now we are reverting to a private basis—I am referring to the beam service. What has the right hon. Gentleman to say about Parliamentary control? He says that Standing Order 72 will be complied with. I have no doubt it will be. When the contract has to be taken out to provide for the use of the beam wireless for public service, the Standing Order comes into effect, but if you read Standing Order 72 it is of no importance in itself. What is important is public control of public finance, and Standing Order 72 is clearly directed to prevent corruption and inefficient contracts. I do not know why they should use such words so many years ago.
What is it that we actually want to know? In the White Paper certain conditions are laid down, and very proper conditions if you are going to have private control—that in time of war two of the directors shall be approved by the Government, that rates shall be under the control of an advisory committee—but there is not one single word of them in the Bill. The White Paper has no meaning to us. It is merely a document, a statement, and absolutely of no value to us in attempting to exercise any control over these contracts. When we ask why we cannot have control before we dispose of the property, the Postmaster-General says that the Communications Company has not yet been formed. Is this Bill to be the means of the formation of the Communications Company? Is the passing of this Bill necessary for its formation? Not at all. Hon. Members must really get out of their mind the idea that anything in the Preamble of the Bill has any statutory value whatever. It is a long Preamble and, apparently, this long Preamble is a sort of excuse for the Government for producing this legislation in a form which
gives the House of Commons the minimum of control over the contract. We think this should be under public control. This company is being given the monopoly of a State service, and the interests of the public should be safeguarded.
Suppose that hon. Members do not agree with this contract. Suppose that we come to the stage where these things are to be handed over to private enterprise. Is it unreasonable that we should say that before we dispose of a valuable asset we should like to see the terms of the contract? There is no reason why we should not be told those terms. It is ridiculous to say that until we have passed this Bill we cannot have a communications company. A company could he made as quickly as a merger. The Postmaster-General says that there is not a merger in existence. I am not going to embark on the technique of finance, but the appearance of the business to the ordinary observer is this that these cable and wireless interests have had the Government by the throat from the beginning, that they will not form a merger unless they are to get certain things transferred to them, and they will not complete the contract until House of Commons control is finished, until we have decided to give away these cables. As far as this House is concerned we are to he out of the picture before anything at all can he done. Is that reasonable? I contend that, Standing Order or no Standing Order, it is only businesslike to ask that the contract should be laid on the Table of the House before we are asked finally to do the deed which nuts any further control completely out of our power.
Then as to beam wireless, it is not for me to challenge any rulings of the Chair, and I would he the last to wish to do so. T do not know how far the. Preamble of the Bill governs questions of Order. I do not know whether we have to go by the Title and Clause or whether the Preamble is concerned at all. It does mention the competition of beam wireless. But accepting the ruling of the Chair that the beam wireless leasing is not to he discussed, see how we stand.

The CHAIRMAN: When I said that this should be a general discussion I
meant that the policy of Clause 1 should be discussed and not merely the narrow points of the Amendment. There is nothing in the Clause or in the succeeding Clauses which deals with beam wireless at all. I imagine that that is a matter of administration.

Mr. BENN: I am not sure whether it is pertinent to ask whether a new Clause on the Paper dealing with beam wireless, is in order or not. It is perhaps premature to ask the question. I presume, however, that we can refer to beam wireless inasmuch as the price paid for this property is due to the fact that they are to get beam wireless on certain terms. That is the material consideration. The situation is this: The Government have stated the minimum necessary to secure consent to the disposal of these properties: they have specially and specifically excluded anything that can give us a voice on the question of disposing of what is valuable—not a thing that is diminishing—namely, the lease of the beam wireless.

Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: That really is a suggestion of motive on the part of the Government. The plain fact is that the Government are asking in this Bill for powers for which they must ask. They have no power to sell without the consent of Parliament. They have power to lease without the consent of Parliament and that is the only reason why in the Bill they have not asked for power to lease.

Mr. HENN: I do say definitely that the tactics of the Government have been to make the minimum demand on Parliament and to conceal as far as possible, and to hold hack, all the necessary particulars, until they have the consent of Parliament. I do say that. If the Postmaster-General denies it, he has a. perfectly simple remedy. Let him put the contract on the Table before the Bill goes through. Then we shall have particulars about beam wireless and the condition laid down in the White Paper, not one of which was certified by this Bill. The contract should be laid on the Table. Can it be that the situation is that the Government has only decided to dispose of these assets and has not yet come to any conclusion as to what it is to get in return? The Financial Secretary to the Treasury, I see, makes
a face, but that is not a sufficient answer. Apparently the situation is that I have made a false charge, that I should not have said "Lay the contract," because there is not a contract. The Government have not yet decided how they are going to enforce the terms which in the public interest are necessary if these assets are to be disposed of. Therefore, I say that the summing up of the matter is this: If the Government, instead of adopting these tactics of taciturnity—in spite of the garrulity of the Postmaster-General to-day—if instead of taking all our questions and lumping them into one to be answered by, the Financial Secretary, who says he has no information to give —if instead of doing that the Government had taken the open, frank and businesslike course, the matter would now be on a more satisfactory footing.

Mr. L'ESTRANGE MALONE: I hope that two of the subsequent Amendments on the Paper will give the Postmaster-General the opportunity which he desires, and which many of us desire, to discuss the developments of telephony and the beam service. The Postmaster-General gave us precedents for the disposal of Government property by referring to the sale of old warships and other war stocks. They are not comparable precedents for the selling of this great organisation on which the security and strategic requirements of the Empire depend. The right hon. Gentleman referred to the speed with which the scheme was considered by the Imperial Conference. Why was the Conference in such a great haste to get through its business? Why had it not time to wait for the evidence from Australia? Why was the expert of the Post Office, I think it was the Chief Engineer, not called to give evidence on beam wireless? Why were all the six parties who gave evidence before the Imperial Conference merely interested parties representing vested interests 2 Would it not have been better to have got some of the eminent scientists like Professor Eckersley, or the engineering staff of the Postmaster-General, to give evidence? The right hon. Gentleman has on his staff radio engineers and other engineers who are second to none in the world. Surely it would have been better to have got their advice before corning to a decision?
I was very glad to hear the Prime Minister say this afternoon that the
Committee of Imperial Defence had approved the recommendations of the Report, including the measures contained in this Bill. I only express the hope that the Committee of Imperial Defence had more evidence to consider than this House has had laid before it in the last few weeks. One thing is rather disquieting, and that is that the Committee of Imperial Defence has charged its mind in the course of the last four years. Four years ago, when the whole matter was discussed, the Donald Committee reported quite definitely that Imperial communications ought to be kept within the control of the Post Office. Now the Committee of Imperial Defence has reversed its decision. I presume that it had an opportunity of discussing these matters four years ago. It is certainly rather disquieting, because it leads one to fear that the Committee is now open to political influence.
One of the most unsatisfactory things connected with this contract and the transfer of these assets is the question of the rates. Before the Postmaster-General brought in this Bill I would have liked to have seen him lay down certain stipulations in regard to the charges for telegrams. I believe that when the interests of the City of London, apart from those that are directly concerned with the financial aspects of this Conference, realise how they have been "had" they will strongly oppose this scheme. What are the rates now? The rates per word are 9d. to Canada, 1s. 1d. to India, 1s. 6d. to South Africa, and 1s. 11d. to Australia. The ordinary man in the street imagines that it costs more to telegraph a word to Australia than it does to telegraph it to Canada. It may have been so under the old cable system. Under the beam system it will cost exactly the same to telegraph from here to Canada or the longest distance to Australia, because, as the Postmaster-General knows, exactly the same transmitting station using the same power at the same cost is utilised in both cases.
There is no reason why the charge for transmission of a cablegram to other parts of the Empire should be any more than the charge of 9d. a word to Canada. I believe it could be reduced very much more. The Secretary of State for the Dominions is interested in the development of cheap communication throughout
the Empire. I believe it is possible to reduce the rate per word to 5d. Possibly the aim of a penny per word rate for the Empire, which has often been mentioned in this House, is not unattainable. Before the Postmaster-General agreed to the disposal of these assets he ought to have taken some steps with regard to the price that is to be charged by the companies for communications within the Empire. I shall not go into alternative suggestions, but it might well be that the increased communications, the increased number of cables which business people will send to different parts of the Empire, would make up for the decrease in the cost of messages. It might work out much more cheaply to the taxpayer to pay a subsidy to keep these cables in commission for strategic purposes within the Empire, and to gain to the Exchequer an increased revenue by having an all-round 5d. per word rate to every part of the Empire. I very much regret that a stipulation regarding the rates to be charged has not been made.
The Postmaster-General referred to the fact that there is no merger and no communications company in existence. Is it not a fact that steps have already been taken to acquire new premises on the Embankment, where all these telegraph undertakings, now carried on at the Post Office, will function, as soon as this organisation is complete? It seems to me that these bodies have disregarded this House and have gone on the assumption that this Bill and all these proposals are going to be carried without opposition. I learned only this morning that a contract has been arranged, amounting to several hundreds of thousands of pounds, for the purchase and equipment of new premises on the Embankment. It will cost a great deal of money and it does not sound very economical, because it means that the office at present used by business men in the City, and all these pneumatic tubes and special lines and other apparatus will have to be transferred from the General Post Office at Newgate Street to the Embankment. At present you have the Central Telegraph Station right in the centre of the City where the bulk of the work is done, and if it is going to be transferred to the Embankment, to a site
which is far from the scene of operations, great inconveniences will be caused.
Further it seems to me to show a disregard for the rights of this House that the company should go ahead with this matter at the present stage. I am glad to notice that the Secretary of State for the Dominions is now in his place because I am sure he will support my plea for cheap Dominion and Colonial rates. I hope he will use his influence with the Postmaster-General to secure the insertion in the contract of something on the lines which I have just indicated. I have looked at the Report of the Pacific Cable Board and I find it difficult to get the actual figure as regards the number of words sent, but I understand that 12,000 words were sent on the Australia line alone. If we reduced the rates to an all-round rate of 5d. to all Dominions, I believe that the present figure would be increased to 50,000,000 or even 100,000,000 words a year and it would be a tremendous benefit to business at home and in all the outlying parts of the Empire. Consequently I hope the Secretary of State for the Dominions will read the remarks which I have already made on this subject.
The hon. Member for East Bristol (Mr. W. Baker) referred briefly to the question of the staff. We had some questions on that point during the Second Reading Debate and the Financial Secretary to the Treasury again referred to it, in reply to a question on Tuesday. We want to have something more specific and definite on that point before we pass this Clause. I wish to bring to the notice of the Postmaster-General some of the difficulties which may affect the staff who are working on these cables and who are now employed by the Postmaster-General. In this connection I have to mention both the cables and the beam, and I believe that when the cables and the beam are transferred from the Postmaster-General something like 250 operators, including supervising officers, will be rendered redundant. I regret that before these discussions took place the human element was not considered. The Conference discussed the transfer of material, and the profit-making side of the question, but the human factor has never been discussed at all. The conditions of service of these men has never been discussed with the men themselves
or their responsible organisations, and the Postmaster-General would do well to take the earliest opportunity of meeting the representatives of the appropriate organisations concerned and discussing with them the question of tine change over. There will be an opportunity later on, of going into this question in detail, but I believe that some of the staffs of the Post Office stations are now in negotiation with the Postmaster-General in regard to an increase in wages, and I hope the right hon. Gentleman will see that the transfer of these services does not prejudice any decision in regard to that increase of wages. I have been in communication with some of the organisations concerned, and I would like to read a considered opinion from a branch chairman in one of these organisations.

The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member is quite in order in referring to the officers affected by the particular transfer under discussion, but the point which he is now raising would appear to be one which should come up on the Post Office Estimates.

Mr. MALONE: I was about to read a resolution passed by one of the organisations concerned about the transfer.

The CHAIRMAN: Is it about the transfer which is dealt with in this Clause, or about the other transfers which are dealt with in the succeeding Clauses?

Mr. MALONE: I was getting very near to the question of the transfer of the beam stations. After all, they are all servants of the Postmaster-General. However, the resolution which I was about to read can be mentioned at the appropriate moment. As regards the transfer of the telegraph stations, there is another danger to which I would draw attention. On these long distance cable routes there are now relay stations. At these stations operators were employed up to recently for passing on the messages to the distant stations; but in the last few months these relay operators have been replaced by mechanical regenerators. I understand that in the Eastern Telegraph Company alone 400 operators have been put out of employment. Will those men be used by the new company in order to put the Postmaster-General's men out of employment? I hope that the right hon.
Gentleman will be careful to see that his own men are given full opportunities under the new conditions, because there are these 400 relay operators, and, undoubtedly, the cable companies will want to find jobs for them. That is all I desire to say at the moment on the staff question, as other points can be raised later.

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Arthur Michael Samuel): I think it will be convenient if I refer to the observations just made by the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Malone), before I address myself to the questions which were put by the hon. Member for North Aberdeen (Mr. W. Benn) and the hon. Member for East Bristol (Mr. W. Baker). Let me read again, if I may, an extract from the Report of the Conference—and here I would like to say, even if I weary the Committee by repeating it, that this is not the view of a British Committee, but is the view of a conference between the representatives of the British Government- and the representatives of the Dominions, the Crown Colonies and India. Therefore, it cannot be looked upon merely as a United Kingdom view. This is what they say:
Our recommendations will, we believe, establish this service on a firm foundation, lead to its development, and provide for its administration in a manner well calculated to bring to the communities which it is its function to serve all the benefits which naturally flow from a rapid, cheap and efficient system of communications.
Who are the people whom we wish primarily to serve? They are the commercial community—of course, taking account of the necessities of the fighting services and the defence of the country. What do the representatives of the great industrial communities say? The hon. Member for Northampton said quite rightly, and I agree with him, that we should look forward to a reduction, if possible, in the rates. That is provided for here, because, by the fusion, you get an opportunity to cheapen rates and to give and to get better facilities for our commercial purposes. What is the view of the people who represent the great commercial firms of England? They are not unacquainted with the terms of these proposals, and I had a letter sent to me personally only half an hour ago from the Council of the Association of British Chambers of Commerce. These are the
people who will provide the revenue of these great services, wireless or cable, and they are the people for whom these organisations are primarily intended. This letter is signed on behalf of the President, Mr. George A. Mitchell, who is chairman of the Glasgow Chamber of Commerce, and this organisation represents the whole of the business community of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: My hon. Friend will excuse rue, but he and I have been Members of chambers of commerce and I am a member of one now, and surely he does not say that they represent the whole of the business community. They do not pretend to represent the whole of the business community.

Mr. SAMUEL: If one were to say that the Manchester Chamber of Commerce or the London Chamber of Commerce did not represent the great bulk of the business community in Manchester or in London, one would be contradicted. This is an organisation which represents all these chambers of commerce. It is a very representative body and may be called the Parliament of the Chambers of Commerce. What does this body say?

"IMPERIAL TELEGRAPHS BILL.

14, Queen Anne's Gate,

Westminster.

5th December.

Sir,

I have the honour, by direction of Mr. George A. Mitchell, the President, to inform you that, at the monthly meeting of the Executive 'Council of this Association held this afternoon, the following Resolution with reference to the above Bill was unanimously adopted and I am directed to transmit a copy to you."

Again I remind the Committee that these are the people who find the money. The resolution is as follows:
The President and Council of the Association of British Chambers of Commerce having considered the Report of the Imperial Wireless and Cable Conference are unanimously of the opinion that the scheme of amalgamation of the Cable Companies and the other proposals contained in the Report will, if carried into effect, be of benefit to British trade.
The President and the Council, therefore desire to record their support of the Imperial Telegraphs Bill now before Parliament which seeks to give effect to the recom-
mendations of the Imperial Wireless and Cable Conference as regards the sale of the Pacific, West Indian and Imperial Transatlantic cable undertakings.
These are people whose views are entitled to respect, and I can conceive of no greater support for our efforts on behalf of the business community than a letter of that kind.

Mr. W. BAKER: In contra-distinction to that letter, will the right hon. Gentleman read paragraph 29 of the Report and especially the latter part?

Mr. SAMUEL: I do not think that is cognate to the proposals with which we are now dealing. May I get on to the other points raised by the hon. Member for Northampton? He said he looked for a cheapening of the rates. The Report shows that after having taken highly competent advice on the matter, the Conference laid down the proviso that everything above the fixed standard of profits, after payment of the 12 per cent. which comes to us, is to be divided, half going to the purpose of cheapening or improving the services. You have there an effort to secure the increased facilities and cheaper service for which the non. Member asks.

Mr. MALONE: What guarantee is there that this money will be devoted to cheapening the rates, and not to buying more apparatus to assist the company?

6.0 p.m.

Mr. SAMUEL: That is a suspicion which can be at once dispersed. You have the Advisory Committee which has very large powers and which is to deal with the very point raised by the hon. Member. But my main task is to justify by argument why the price should be £517,000 plus the taking over of the debt of £1,233,000, and not the £5,000,000 mentioned in the Amendment. Before dealing with that, may I address myself to one or two minor financial points put by the hon. Member for East Bristol. The answer to the question as to why 3 per cent. interest is included in the annuity, is that when the annuity was set up in 1903, that was roughly the value of money at the time. The hon. Member expressed some astonishment as to why there was a repayment of capital on Government undertakings because it was not usual in ordinary commercial undertakings. The answer is that in a great undertaking like this cable undertaking,
cables become obsolete. Only £10,000 had been provided this last year, for replacement of worn-out equipment. The other point he put was about a provident fund on the Pacific Cable and the West India Cable. There is an Amendment down dealing with this point, and I do not think it would be in order for me to deal with it now. The same may be said with regard to the question raised by the hon. Member for Northampton with regard to stocks. There is an Amendment down about that too, and I would prefer to deal with it when that Amendment comes up.
I am asked why the valuers have put the figure of £517,000, plus £1,233,000, rather than the suggested amount of £5,000,000 put down by the hon. Member for East Bristol and by the hon. Member for Finsbury (Mr. Gillett). The £517,000 is the figure put by these most competent examiners as representing what the value now is. I do not know whether those who framed the Amendment meant that the debt for £1,233,000 should also be added to the £5,000,000, making £6,233,000, but let me take note of the smaller figure of £5,000,000 and let me ask what justification there would be for that sum rather than for the sum of £517,000. To place that sum as a proviso in this Bill would be tantamount to forbidding a sale, because no one would pay such a price. What have been the results for the last few years? In the best time of the boom years the figures of profits reached £123,000 in 1921, £169,000 in 1922, £164,000 in 1923, 2167,000 in 1924, £70,000 in 1925, £100,000 in 1926, £42,000 in 1927, and this year hey are estimated at nil.

Mr. WELLOCK: Are those figures after paying interest?

Mr. SAMUEL: After paying interest and only £10,000 towards repairs and renewals in the last year. The capital value of the undertaking is obviously to be measured by its earning capacity. If it yields nothing, the capitalisation is nothing. But there is another side to that which I think hon. Members opposite have entirely lost sight of. Here is this Conference which gives a unanimous report. We are not the predominant owners of this cable. It is not for us to say to our partners, if they have other
views and have unanimously come to the conclusion that the sum proposed in the report is satisfactory to them, that they are wrong. We are not the predominant partners, and that seems to have been overlooked. We are asked to brush aside the decisions of the partners who hold the controlling interest. The ownership of the Pacific cable is divided up into 18 portions, and we do not hold all those portions or even half of them. Some 13 out of the 18 portions are held by Governments other than His Majesty's Government in Great Britain. We hold only five-eighteenths of them, or less than a third, Australia holds six-eighteenths, Canada five-eighteenths and New Zealand two-eighteenths. Therefore, although the owners of thirteen-eighteenths say that they are quite willing and ready and content to sell at the sum put down in the Report, hon. Members opposite want us, who hold only five-eighteenths, to legislate for the whole property.

Mr. BENN: Does the hon. Gentleman say that the scheme in the Bill was pressed upon us by the majority opinion in the Conference?

Mr. GILLETT: Are we to infer that half of this money is not corning from us?

Mr. SAMUEL: Out of the £517,000 we only have a right, legal and moral, to a sum of about £144,000. We are not the predominant partner by any means. That has been overlooked throughout the whole of these discussions.

Mr. W. BAKER: Oh, no!

Mr. SAMUEL: It has not been given proper weight, then. There was no pressure. I was a member of that Conference, and everything that we arrived at was done freely, without any pressure from anybody.

Mr. BENN: The hon. Member is misunderstanding me. His case is, What is the good of us defending ourselves if we are not in a majority? We ask, Are you making yourselves responsible? Were you the initiators? You are putting the blame on other people.

Mr. SAMUEL: We are not. We think the line which was taken by the Conference was the right line, and we agree with what they have proposed. But
what hon. Members opposite ask us to do is to bring pressure on our partners in a way which we think would not be justifiable. They want us to impose their views, against the will of our partners, upon them.

Mr. HARRIS: Was this scheme initiated by His Majesty's Government, or did it come from elsewhere?

Mr. SAMUEL: I was present at about 34 meetings, and the whole scheme was examined as hon. Members opposite would wish it to be examined, exhaustively, over a long period. I think that is all I need say at the moment.

Mr. AMMON: The Financial Secretary to the Treasury has certainly raised one or two interesting queries, particularly when he has made reference to the measure of responsibility between different contracting parties in the Empire as to the disposal of this particular cable. Everyone here is aware that we would not be discussing this particular Measure if it were not for the fact that it is the first link in a very much longer chain that has for its object the taking in of the cable and wireless communications, and I would like to ask, when stress has again and again been laid on the fact that this has been an Imperial Conference and not a Committee, if we have not the right to inquire what has happened during the intervening years to cause that Imperial Conference to change its mind on this subject.
The right hon. Gentleman the Postmaster-General made a reference to my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition in his statement of the position taken up by the Post Office as to the taking over of the wireless communications. I do not think it was quite as the Postmaster-General stated, although I am sure he did not intend to give any wrong impression. But the statement gave credit to the late Government for putting this into operation. What really happened was that the matter came under discussion, and the Government of the day were advised by their technical expert as to the possibilities within the wireless scheme, but there was a doubt whether or not the venture would be too large, as compared with cables
which were tried and tested; and it was on the advice of their expert adviser that the Government took the plunge that they did and went in for wireless. I think the right hon. Gentleman will agree that that is a fair statement of the case.
That brings me to other considerations, because I knew something of the discussions that were going on in certain quarters and the frantic efforts that were being made by the Marconi and other companies to get hold of the wireless communications. At that time, and again and again over a period of years, the Imperial Conference met, and they carried unanimously—and this has never been denied, though I have put it to the House again and again in the presence of the Dominions Secretary—a Resolution that these communications should be in the hands of the State, owned and controlled by the State. Further, a communication was issued to all Government Departments, signed by all Government Departments with the single exception of the Scottish Office, but including the Dominions Department and that of the Postmaster-General, laying down and emphasising the urgent need of this particular means of communication being under the control of the State. They were unsuccessful in getting that through. What seems to have happened is that they anticipated that the competition of the new beam system would have such an effect that it would take away the trade from the cable companies, and one of the immediate results was that the cable companies had to reduce their charges, while the result of that was that a larger flow of business came to the cable companies.
Evidently some pressure was going on behind the scenes—and this Committee has a right to know what it was—whereby the Government refused to put into operation the decisions of the Imperial Conference, hut waited until this particular position had arisen. Now they are proceeding via the cable companies, on the ground that the cables are being put out of business. That is the whole gravamen of our charge. The cable companies are being put out of business, it is said, by this new invention which is developing at such a rate. When the Postmaster-General, whom we were delighted to hear take part in the dis-
cussion at last, comments adversely on the suggestion of my hon. Friend the Member for East Bristol (Mr. W. Baker) that there has been some corrupt practice, though I have never made any such statement myself, I suggest nevertheless that there is a good deal of colour lent to that sort of thing, and, further, the Government are adding to it by not giving frank statements to the House as to what transpired in regard to the business. We are still waiting for a reply as to what pressure has been brought or what has caused these various Governments to change their minds. It looks very much as though certain interests behind the scenes have been waiting their opportunity. There have been changes of Government in all the Dominions and in this country too, and they have waited for this opportunity to come forward and get hold of this new business under cover of the breakdown of the cable system. Up to now there has been no reply to that charge in this House, and I think we have a right to demand that a reply should be given to indicate what has caused all these Governments to make a change of face and to bring about the position in which we now find ourselves.

The SECRETARY of STATE for DOMINION AFFAIRS (Mr. Amery): It might be convenient if I replied at once to the point, which, I agree, is an important point, raised by the hon. Member. His contention is that, in spite of resolutions passed over a long period by Imperial Conferences in favour of State-owned wireless, we have suddenly decided to go away from the system of State-owned wireless, and, on the pretext of competition with cables, have substituted a privately-owned cable and wireless system. I agree with the hon. Member that in the beginning the Imperial Conference did commit itself to the system of State-owned wireless stations. In 1911, the Imperial Conference passed a resolution expressing the desirability of a chain of State-owned wireless stations being established within the Empire. In 1921, a similar resolution to the same effect was passed, with one rather important qualification. The Prime Minister of Australia only accepted it subject to giving full freedom of action to Australia to decide the method by which Australia would co-operate. Within the next few months, early in 1922, Australia showed
that her conclusion was to co-operate, not by means of State-owned wireless, but by giving a licence to the Australian Amalgamated Wireless Company. Australia was followed in the same year by South Africa and Canada, and in 1923 the Government of India followed, although to some extent under the general control of this country, and committed itself to private wireless.
Accordingly, when the Imperial Economic Conference discussed this question in October, 1923, it no longer confirmed or could confirm the desirability of a State-owned system of wireless, because wireless outside this country in every important part of the Empire was already in private hands. Therefore, all that it could commit itself to was the desirability of establishing as quickly as possible an efficient Imperial service, and it expressed the opinion that the several Governments should take immediate action to remove any difficulties that delayed the accomplishment of this, and to provide adequate safeguards against the subordination of public to private interests. We believe that the system which has been inaugurated as the result of the recent Conference exactly fulfils the conditions laid down by the Imperial Economic Conference of 1923. It is the only kind of fusion or amalgamation possible in view of the fact that, not only is a large part of the cables in private hands, but every other beam station in the Empire is in private hands. Hon. Members opposite speak as if this were a matter of the Government-owned beam service competing with inefficient private cables. As a matter of fact, the beam service, as a service, was not Government-owned. A beam has two ends to it, and while one end of the beam here was operated by the Government, the other end was operated by a private company. In this way the beam, as such, was competing with cables, some of which were Government-owned, and some were privately-owned.
It was not the privately-owned cables that asked for action, it was the Dominion of Canada, as one of the partners in the Pacific cable, and in November last year they suggested that, in view of the menace to the revenues of the Government-owned cable service from the private-cum-Government-owned beam wireless, a conference should meet
to consider the whole question of how the future maintenance of the cables, from the point of view of defensive and commercial secrecy, could be maintained. Out of that Conference was evolved, not at the initiative of the British Government, but from the consideration at the Conference of all the alternatives, the present scheme which, while it secures unity of administration and the economies consequent upon such unity of administration and the flexibility of private control, also secures Government control of the things that are essential to the community. I have always been of the opinion that in recent years the newest form of Socialism is not direct bureaucratic Government management, but great public utilities organised on private lines and subject to Government control, the Government participating in the profits and making arrangements for the community to participate in the profits or in the increasing development of the system. Here, the Government get their share of the revenue, they get an immediate financial reward, and are enabled to secure what I believe to be an ever-increasing measure of provision for extending or improving the service for the benefit of the community, or for cheapening the rates with the same object.

Mr. GILLETT: What the right hon. Gentleman has said does not seem to coincide with some information I have here. He has spoken about the Australian Company which is. I agree, a limited company, but 500,001 shares out of 1,000,000 are the property of the Government. The Government of Australia appoint three of the directors, and when the right hon. Gentleman speaks about these companies as if they were purely private concerns, he ought, in fairness to the Committee—

Mr. AMERY: I did not amplify that point. It is a private company, although the Government have a large and substantial holding of shares.

Mr. GILLETT: The right hon. Gentleman hardly gave the Committee a fair description of the private company. Technically, I agree that is correct but a private company in which the majority of the shares is held by a Government, is in a different position. Both the other
companies in South Africa and Canada, are, I agree, private companies, but both are working under an annual licence.

Mr. AMERY: The Communications Company will work under licence.

Mr. GILLETT: At any rate in the Australian Wireless Company, the Government have considerable control. The point I wished specially to mention is that I confess that the Financial Secretary to the Treasury has not answered my fears, with which we are concerned in this Amendment, as to the price at which we are going to dispose of the one cable with which we are concerned. I was hoping that he would give us some definite figure. What I have to complain about is that when the hon. Gentleman introduced the proposals in his speech two or three weeks ago, he spoke about the position of the cables as if the cable companies were almost bankrupt concerns. At the same time, in the Debate this afternoon mention has ben made of the extraordinary position of the private cable companies. I was rather surprised when the hon. and gallant Member for Midlothian and Peebles (Sir R. Hutchison) referred to the various transactions that had taken place on the Stock Exchange as if they were of no importance. There are many transactions to which it would be absurd to attach too great importance. What happened was that the reports came that the cable companies were going to be amalgamated. I agree with the principle of amalgamation, because I believe that in big business today, there has to be amalgamation, and the only thing that could be done was to amalgamate—"fusion" is the term used in this report. What happened? Rumours went round that this fusion was taking place, and the ordinary shares, which only last year at one time were as low as 139, have been this year at 255 or 260: and when you find the same change in Marconi shares from 41s. last year to about 84s., the highest figure, this year, one gets an expression of opinion that the public think that this fusion will have a definite advantage to the cable companies. It is almost certain that it is bound to have such advantage. The Financial Secretary, however, when he introduced his Resolution, spoke as if these concerns were bankrupt, and that all the cables were in a bad way. I
should like to draw his attention to a speech made by Sir John Denison-Pender at a meeting of the Eastern Telegraph Company on 25th July this year. He was speaking of the beam competition, and he said he repeated what he said at the Globe Telegraph and Trust Company.

Mr. A. M. SAMUEL: I never made any reference to these cables. The cables with which we are dealing are the Pacific Cables.

Mr. GILLETT: What I am pointing out is that some are private cables and others are Government cables, and the lion. Gentleman made out that the Government cables, on account of the beam competition, were more or less worthless. I say that if the Government cables are worthless, the private cables are worthless also, and I am quoting what Sir John Denison-Pender said about the private cables. He said:
The Eastern and Associated Cable Companies still continue to carry both a much larger volume and value of traffic than the Government wireless services between the respective countries where they are in competition, and this in spite of the materially lower wireless rates. It is clear, therefore, that the cable still holds a definite and important part in the communications of the world.
He maintained that the cables still have a place, but the Financial Secretary seemed to imply that the Government cables were out-of-date, and that we should dispose of them for anything. My argument is that the Stock Exchange quotations show that the public think that, owing to the fusion, the value of the private cables is increased. I rather think that the hon. Gentleman agrees with me. I say that the same thing applies to the Government cables, and the Government cables ought to be looked after in the same way.
The hon. Member made a very bad mistake in his speech, and I was rather surprised that, with his knowledge of finance, he should have made it. He spoke last time of the Pacific cables earning only sufficient money to pay interest upon their loan capital. If he looks at the accounts, he will find that last year they paid in interest £38,000 but also paid off capital to the extent of £39,000. I agree that many hon. Members might have passed the thing over, but I cannot understand a financial
expert like the hon. Member speaking in a slip-shod fashion like that, saying they could only just pay their interest when they had also paid off £39,000 of their capital. The reason why I look upon it so seriously is that the hon. Member must know perfectly well the difference between public finance and private finance. He said he did not know why the figure of £5,000,000 was put in the Amendment. I will tell him. That sum is, in round figures, the original capital expenditure on these cables—the exact figure is, I think, £4,720,000. There was a first loan for £2,000,000. Then, as I understand, another cable was put down, on which £2,700,000 out of the reserves was expended. In other words, it cost £4,700,000 to lay down these cables.
Supposing this had been a private company, what would have been the position? I take it that the company would appear to-day with a capital of £4,700,000; roughly, £5,000,000 would have been their capital. On the other hand, they would have been steadily putting away money to pay off that capital, a point which the hon. Member ignored in his slip-shod statement, and that is why I charged him with being so careless; he had overlooked the fact that they were paying off capital all the time. During all this discussion of public and private finance hon. Members are overlooking the difference between a private company and the method by which we financed this. A private company puts its money to reserves; a Government concern writes off its capital. That is the position. As far as I can gather, £4,700,000 was spent in putting down these cables, and the hon. Member tells us to-day that there is still a debt of £1,000,000. What has happened to the rest? Presumably it has been paid off, either by sinking payments, paying off a definite amount each year, or, as I gather, the profits of certain years which were rather large were used in order to put down this second cable. Now the hon. Member is going to hand his cables, on which a debt of £3,000,000 has been paid off, to the new company in return for the sum of £1,200,000 to pay off the remainder of the debt, plus the sum of £500,000.
I wish to ask the hon. Member whether it is not the case that the second cable was laid down only two or three years
ago? It cost nearly £2,700,000. The amount written off a cable each year is one-fortieth of the capital expenditure. Even after taking off one-fortieth a year for those two or three years, the value of this one cable alone must be somewhere in the neighbourhood of more than £2,000,000, but the hon. Member is not going to get even £2,000,000 for it, and is giving the second cable as well. These are the figures which I want the hon. Member to explain. It does not seem to me that he gave us an explanation which made it clear as to why he had arrived at the figure he quoted. He said: "I will now explain why we have arrived at the figure of £570,000," but went on with his speech without, as far as I remember, making any reference whatever to it.

Mr. A. M. SAMUEL: We appointed two extremely competent men to advise the conference. One was Sir Otto Niemeyer and the other was Sir William McLintock, both held in high esteem in their profession. I will not say that I formed any opinion, because the hon. Member has said that I am a man of slipshod methods. The capital value of a possession is what rental or profit it will bring. The two expert persons provided to advise the conference what the capital value of this cable was came to the conclusion that it would, in future, earn sufficient money to justify a capitalisation of £517,000 after the loan debt of £1,233,000 had been provided for. That is the whole thing in a nutshell.

Mr. GILLETT: We do not specially know who these gentlemen are, and what I am complaining of is the extraordinary contrast between this and a privately-owned concern. If this cable is only worth this figure, why is it that the private cable companies are bringing into being a merger company with this enormous increase in capital, and why is there all this rise in share values? Look at the Marconi Company. The face value of their capital is somewhere about £2,000,000 to £3,000,000, but in the merger they have been given shares to the face value of something like £17,000,000. I quite agree with the Postmaster-General that that has nothing to do with the subject before, us—except this, that the whole crux of the problem is why the Communications Company re-
quire £30,000,000. What I do say is that all this movement of shares on the Stock Exchange proves what people are thinking is going to be the worth of these things, while at the same time the hon. Member has nothing to tell us except the opinions of one or two experts and some figures.
I am a little doubtful about their experts, because although we had from the Postmaster-General a very glowing description of Professor Eccles, strange to say his name does not appear among the list of witnesses who appeared before the Conference. It would be interesting to know, also, whether the people who gave this expert opinion were qualified to do so, and why it was that Professor Eccles was not called to give evidence. It seems to me that the defence of the hon. Member is a very poor one. I do not wish him to think that I regard him, speaking generally, as being slipshod, and I did not say so. It is because I think so highly of him that I feel that on this occasion he was very slipshod. I should have thought nothing of it if certain hon. Members had made the statement, but I know the hon. Member is an authority on finance, and, therefore, I could not forgive him for it when it is so vital to the case.

Mr. WARDLAW-MILNE: In regard to what the hon. Member for Finsbury (Mr. Gillett) has said, it is interesting for the Committee to know that in his opinion, at any rate, the fact that certain movements take place in certain shares which are quoted on the Stock Exchange shows that those who take part in those operations possess some knowledge of affairs which is concealed from the rest of the world, and are better able to forecast values than other people. To many of us who have some connection with these matters quotations quoted on the Stock Exchange prove nothing at all; in very many cases prices are merely manipulated for the purpose of gulling some very gullible people. It does not appeal to me, therefore, as a strong argument against the price fixed in this contract to say that there have been certain operations on the Stock Exchange in the last few months in connection with Cable Company's shares. On the general question, the hon. Member for Finsbury appeared to base his argument in favour of a price of £5,000,000 upon the fact that that was
what the cables originally cost. In other words, he appears to want to charge £5,000,000 because that was the amount paid for the cables in the first place, quite ignoring the fact that not only has there been considerable depreciation since they were laid down but also ignoring the fact that the earning value of these cables has materially declined. The whole basis of the proposals which we are now discussing is that the earning power of the cables has decreased so much that a merger is necessary. If that be so, surely he must see that the case for charging £5,000,000, because that was the cost of the cables when they were laid down, goes by the board. Apart from the fact that this valuation has been arrived at by experts in the manner which has been described to us by the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, it surely is clear that in arriving at their value to-day we must take into consideration what is their earning capacity and what competition, if this merger were not carried through, they would likely have to face.

Mr. MALONE: I feel we must press for a reply to one point on which the Financial Secretary has omitted to say anything. I thank him for his reply, but there was one question which I put to which he would not be able to make a reply. I saw the Secretary of State for Scotland there, and thought he might answer. It was a point which was raised by myself earlier in the Debate, and by my hon. Friend the Member for Finsbury (Mr. Gillett) just now. The question is why no technical witnesses were called before this Conference. We have heard about these two learned financiers Sir Otto Niemeyer and Sir William McLintock, but by no conceivable stretch of the imagination can they be regarded as technical officers, and I want to know why eminent independent men like Professor Eccles were not called as witnesses, and why some of the engineers of the

Post Office were not consulted about the scheme. I suppose the Postmaster-General has got on his staff cable and radio engineers second to none in the world. Why were they not called as witnesses before the Conference? Six groups of witneses gave evidence, but every one of those groups represented a private liability company, with vested interests in the result which has been produced; and I want to know why other independent advice from outside, or from the Postmaster-General's own staff, was not sought. If we could be assured that such witnesses were called, we should have much greater confidence in approving the Regulation.

Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: The problems arising of a technical nature were not such as to require the evidence and the advice of technical experts on their own technical ground. Had those problems presented themselves I do not hesitate to say the conference would undoubtedly have asked for technical advice. They were aware in general terms of the various aspects of the problem, because they had expert advice from the Post Office and the Treasury, and from any other necessary Departments, but actual technical advice on matters of radio machinery and radio telegraphy was not necessary, because the Conference did not require it.

Mr. MALONE: Does the right hon. Gentleman tell us that the co-ordination of the beam service with the cables is not a technical matter?

Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: It is a matter of administration.

Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 212; Noes, l28.

Division No. 26.]
AYES.
[6.46 p m.


Albery, Irving James
Bellairs, Commander Cariyon
Brown, Ernest (Leith)


Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.
Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)
Bullock, Captain M.


Applin, Colonel R. V. K.
Bennett, A. J.
Burman, J. B.


Apsley, Lord
Berry, Sir George
Burton, Colonel H. W.


Ashtey, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.
Birchall, Major J. Dearman
Caine, Gordon Hall


Atholl, Duchess of
Bird, E. R. (Yorks, W. R., Skipton)
Cassels, J. D.


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Cautley, Sir Henry S.


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart
Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)


Balniel, Lord
Briscoe, Richard George
Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)


Banks, Sir Reginald Mitchell
Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.
Charteris, Brigadier-General J.


Beckett, Sir Gervase (Leeds, N.)
Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks, Newb'y)
Christie, J. A.


Clayton, G. C.
Heneage, Lieut.-Col. Arthur P.
Price, Major C. W. M.


Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.
Henn, Sir Sydney H.
Raine, Sir Walter


Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips
Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.
Rees, Sir Beddoe


Cooper, A. Duff
Herbert, S. (York, N.R., Scar. & Wh'by)
Reid, D. D. (County Down)


Cope, Major Sir William
Hills, Major John Waller
Rentoul, G. S.


Couper, J. B.
Hilton, Cecil
Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)


Cowan, Sir Wm. Henry (Islington, N.)
Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.
Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell


Craig, Capt. Rt. Hon. c. C. (Antrim)
Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar)
Ruggles-Brise, Lieut.-Colonel E. A.


Craig, Sir Ernest (Chester, Crewe)
Howard-Bury, Colonel C. K.
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)


Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend)
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Salmon, Major I.


Culverwell, C. T. (Bristol, West)
Hudson, R. S. (Cumberland, Whiteh'n)
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)


Davies, Sir Thomas (Cirencester)
Hume, Sir G. H.
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)


Davies, Dr. Vernon
Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer
Sandeman, N. Stewart


Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)
Hurd, Percy A.
Sanders, Sir Robert A.


Dawson, Sir Philip
Hurst, Gerald B.
Sandon, Lord


Dean, Arthur Wellesley
Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose)
Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustava D.


Drewe, C.
Illfis, Sir Edward M.
Savery, S. S.


Edge, Sir William
James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert
Shaw, R. G. (Yorks, W. R., Sowerby)


Edmondson, Major A. J.
King, Commodore Henry Douglas
Shaw, Lt.-Col. A. D. Mcl. (Renfrew, W)


Elliot, Major Walter E.
Kinloch-Cooke, sir Clement
Sheffield, Sir Berkeley


Ellis, R. G.
Knox, Sir Alfred
Skelton, A. N.


Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s.-M.)
Lamb, J. Q.
Smith, R.W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)


Erskine, James Malcolm Montelth
Lister, Cunliffe-, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip
Smithers, Waldron


Evans, Captain A. (Cardiff, South)
Livingstone, A. M.
Spender-Clay, Colonel H.


Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.)
Loder, J. de V.
Stanley, Lord (Fylde)


Everard, W. Lindsay
Long, Major Eric
Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westm'eland)


Falle, Sir Bertram G.
Looker, Herbert William
Steel, Major Samuel Strang


Fanshawe, Captain G. D.
Luce, Major-Gen. Sir Richard Harman
Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.


Fenby, T. D.
Lynn, Sir R. J.
Stuart, Crichton-, Lord C.


Fermoy, Lord
MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Ford, Sir P. J.
Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser


Forrest, W.
Maclntyre, Ian
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid


Foster, Sir Harry S.
McLean, Major A.
Tasker, R. Inigo.


Foxcroft, Captain C. T.
Macmillan, Captain H.
Templeton, W. P.


Fraser, Captain Ian
Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Malcolm
Thorn, Lt.-Col. J. G. (Dumbarton)


Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Macquisten, F. A.
Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)


Gadie, Lieut.-Col. Anthony
Maltland, Sir Arthur D. Steel.
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)


Galbraith, J. F. W.
Makins, Brigadier-General E.
Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell-


Ganzonl, Sir John
Margesson, Captain D.
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of


Gates, Percy
Marriott. Sir J. A. R.
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Gault, Lieut.-Col. Andrew Hamilton
Mason, Colonel Glyn K.
Vaughan-Morgan, Cot. K. P.


Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Milne, J. S. Wardlaw-
Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.


Glyn, Major R. G. C.
Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)
Warrender, Sir Victor


Goff, Sir Park
Mitchell, W. Foot (Saffron Watden)
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


Grace, John
Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)
Watson, Rt. Hon. w. (Carlisle)


Grant, Sir J. A.
Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.
Watts, Sir Thomas


Greaves-Lord, Sir Walter
Moore, Sir Newton J.
Wells, S. R.


Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)
Moreing, Captain A. H.
White, Lieut.-Col. Sir G. Dairymple-


Grotrian, H. Brent
Nail, Colonel Sir Joseph
Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)


Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.
Nelson, Sir Frank
Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)


Gunston, Captain D. W.
Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)
Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)


Hacking, Douglas H.
Nicholson, O. (Westminster)
Wolmer, Viscount


Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)
Nicholson, Col. Rt. Hn. W. G. (Ptrsf'ld.)
Womersley, W. J.


Hammersley, S. S.
Owen, Major G.
Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley


Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Pennefather, Sir John
Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.


Harland, A.
Penny, Frederick George
Wright, Brig.-General W. D.


Hartington, Marquess of
Perkins, Colonel E. K.



Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)
Perring, Sir William George
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Haslam, Henry C.
Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)
Captain Wallace and Captain Bowyer.


Henderson, Capt. R. R.(Oxf'd, Henley)
Preston, Sir Walter (Cheltenham)



NOES.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)
Clynes, Rt. Hon, John R.
Griffith, F. Kingsley


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Compton, Joseph
Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)


Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')
Connolly, M.
Grundy, T. W.


Ammon, Charles George
Cove, W. G.
Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)


Baker, Walter
Dalton, Hugh
Hardle, George D.


Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)
Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale)
Hayday, Arthur


Barr, J.
Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burnley)


Batey, Joseph
Day, Harry
Henderson, T. (Glasgow)


Beckett, John (Gateshead)
Dunnico, H.
Hirst, G. H.


Bellamy, A.
Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)


Benn, Wedgwood
Gardner, J. P.
Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)


Bondfield, Margaret
Garro-Jones, Captain G. M.
Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Gibbins, Joseph
John, William (Rhondda, West)


Briant, Frank
Gillett, George M.
Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)


Broad, F. A.
Gosling, Harry
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)


Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)
Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Jones, C. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)


Buchanan, G.
Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.)
Kelly, W. T.


Cape, Thomas
Greenall, T.
Kennedy, T.


Charleton, H. C.
Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)
Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M.


Cluse, W. S.
Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Kirkwood, D.




Lawrence, Susan
Riley, Ben
Townend, A. E.


Lawson, John James
Ritson, J.
Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles


Lee, F.
Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O.(W. Bromwich)
Viant, S. P.


Langbottom, A. W.
Saklatvala, Shapurji
Wellhead, Richard C.


Lunn, William
Salter, Dr. Alfred
Waish, Rt. Hon. Stephen


MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R.(Abaravon)
Scrymgeour, E.
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)


Mackinder, W.
Scurr, John
Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah


Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton)
Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)
Wellock, Wilfred


March, S.
Shepherd, Arthur Lewis
Welsh, J. C.


Maxton, James
Shiels, Dr. Drummond
Westwood, J.


Montague, Frederick
Shinwell, E.
Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.


Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Smillie, Robert
Wilkinson, Ellen C.


Mosley, Sir Oswald
Smith, Ban (Bermondsey, Rotherhithes)
Williams, David (Swansea, East)


Murnin, H.
Snell, Harry
Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)


Naylor, T. E.
Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip
Williams, T (York, Don Valley)


Oliver, George Harold
Stamford, T. w.
Wilson. C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)


Palin, John Henry
Stephen, Campbell
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Paling, W.
Stewart, J. (St. Roltox)
Windsor, Walter


Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)
Sullivan, J.
Wright, W.


Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.
Sutton, J. E.
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Ponsonby, Arthur
Taylor, R. A.



Potts, John S.
Thurtle, Ernest
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Purcell, A. A.
Tinker, John Joseph
Mr. A. Barnes and Mr. Whiteley.


Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Tomlinson, R. P.

Mr. W. BAKER: I beg to move, in page 3, line 24, after the ward "may," to insert the words:
at a price to be approved by a resolution of the House of Commons.

Question put, "That those words be there inserted."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 128; Noes, 213.

Division No. 27.]
AYES.
[6.51 p.m.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fill, West)
Hayday, Arthur
Scrymgeour, E.


Adamson, W. M. (Staff, Cannock)
Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Burnley)
Scurr, John


Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')
Henderson, T. (Glasgow)
Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)


Ammon, Charles George
Hirst, G. H.
Shiels, Dr. Drummond


Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bilston)
Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)
Shinwell, E.


Baker, Walter
Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)
Smillie, Robert


Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abartillery)
Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)
Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhitha)


Barr, J
John, William (Rhondda, West)
Snell, Harry


Beckett, John (Gateshead)
Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)
Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip


Bellamy, A.
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Stamford, T. W.


Benn, Wedgwood
Kelly, W. T.
Stephen, Campbell


Bondfield, Margaret
Kennedy, T.
Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hen. Joseph M.
Sullivan, Joseph


Briant, Frank
Kirkwood, D.
Sutton, J. E.


Broad, F. A.
Lawrence, Susan
Taylor, R. A.


Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)
Lawson, John James
Thomas, Rt. Hon. James H. (Darby)


Buchanan, G.
Lee, F.
Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plalstow)


Cape, Thomas
Longbottom, A. W.
Thurtle, Ernest


Chariston, H. C.
Lunn, William
Tinker, John Joseph


Cluse, W. S.
Mac Donald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Aberavon)
Tomlinson, R. P.


Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R
Mackinder, W.
Townend, A. E.


Compton, Joseph
Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton)
Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles


Connolly, M.
March, S.
Viant, S. P.


Cove, W. G.
Maxton, James
Wallhead, Richard C.


Dalton, Hugh
Montague, Frederick
Walsh, Rt. Hon. Stephen


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)


Day, Harry
Mosley, Sir Oswald
Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah


Dunnico, H.
Murnin, H.
Wellock, Wilfred


Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
Naylor, T. E.
Welsh, J. C.


Gardner, J. P.
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
Westwood, J.


Garro-Jones, Captain G. M.
Oliver, George Harold
Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.


Gibbins, Joseph
palin, John Henry
Wilkinson, Ellen C.


Gillett, George M.
Paling, W.
Williams, David (Swansea, East)


Gosling, Harry
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)
Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)


Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cant.)
Ponsonby, Arthur
Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)


Greenall, T.
Potts, John S.
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Coine)
Purcell, A. A.
Windsor, Walter


Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Richardson, R, (Houghton-le-Spring)
Wright, W.


Griffith, F. Kingsley
Riley, Ben
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Ritson, J.



Grundy, T. W.
Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O.(W. Bromwich)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)
Saklatvala, Shapurji
Mr. A. Barnes and Mr. Whiteley.


Hardie, George D.
Salter, Dr. Alfred



NOES.


Albery, Irving James
Apsley, Lord
Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley


Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.
Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.
Balfour, George (Hampstead)


Applin, Colonel R. V. K.
Atholl, Duchess of
Balniel, Lord


Banks, Sir Reginald Mitchell
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Glyn, Major R. G. C.
Nicholson, O. (Westminster)


Beckett, Sir Gervase (Leeds, N.)
Goff, Sir Park
Nicholson, Col. Rt.Hn.W.G.(Ptrsf'ld.)


Bellairs, Commander Carlyon
Grace, John
Owen, Major G.


Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)
Grant, Sir J. A.
Penny, Frederick George


Bennett, A. J.
Greaves-Lord, Sir Walter
Perkins, Colonel E. K.


Berry, Sir George
Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)
Perring, Sir William George


Birchall, Major J. Dearman
Grotrian, H. Brent
Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)


Bird, E. R. (Yorks, W. R.. Sklplon)
Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.
Preston, Sir Walter (Cheltenham)


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Gunston, Captain D. W.
Price, Major C. W. M.


Bowater, Colonel Sir T. Vanslttart
Hacking, Douglas H.
Raine, Sir Walter


Braithwalte, Ma|or A. N.
Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)
Rees, Sir Beddoe


Briscoe, Richard George
Hall, Capt. W. D'A. (Brecon & Rad.)
Reid, D. D. (County Down)


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Hammersley, S. S.
Rentoul, G. S.


Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H.C.(Berks, Newb'y)
Harland, A.
Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell


Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Hartington, Marquess of
Ruggles-Brise, Lieut.-Colonel E. A.


Bullock, Captain M.
Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)


Burman, J. B.
Haslam, Henry C.
Salmon, Major I.


Burton, Colonel H. W.
Henderson, Capt. R. R.(Oxl'd,Henley)
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnnam)


Calne, Gordon Hall
Heneage, Lieut.-Col. Arthur P.
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)


Cassels, J. D.
Henn, Sir Sydney H.
Sandeman, N. Stewart


Cautley, Sir Henry S.
Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.
Sanders, Sir Robert A.


Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)
Herbert, S. (York, N.R.,Scar. & Wh'by)
Sandon, Lord


Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth. s)
Hills, Major John Waller
Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.


Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)
Hilton, Cecil
Savery, S. S.


Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)
Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.
Shaw, R. G. (Yorks. W.R., Sowerby)


Charteris, Brigadier-General J.
Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar)
Shaw, Lt.-Col. A.D. Mcl.(Renfrew,W.|)


Christie, J. A.
Howard-Bury, Colonel C. K.
Sheffield, Sir Berkeley


Clayton, G. C.
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney.N.)
Skelton, A. N


Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.
Hudson, R. S. (Cumberland, Whlteh'n)
Smith. R. W.(Aberd'n & Kine'dine, C.)


Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips
Hume, Sir G. H.
Smithers, Waldron


Cooper, A. Duff
Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer
Spender-Clay, Colonel H.


Cope, Major Sir William
Hurd, Percy A.
Stanley, Lord (Fylde)


Couper, J. B.
Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose)
Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westm'eland)


Cowan, Sir Wm. Henry (Islington, N.)
liffle, Sir Edward M.
Steel, Major Samuel Strang


Craig, Sir Ernest (Chester, Crewe)
James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert
Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.


Crooke, J. Smediey (Derltend)
King, Commodore Henry Douglas
Stuart, Crichton-, Lord C.


Culverwell, C. T. (Bristol, West)
Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Davies, Sir Thomas (Cirencester)
Knox, Sir Alfred
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Frater


Davies, Dr. Vernon
Lamb, J. Q.
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid


Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)
Lister, Cunliffe, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip
Talker, R. Inlgo.


Dawson, Sir Philip
Livingstons, A. M.
Templeton, W. P.


Dean, Arthur Wellesley
Loder, J. de V.
Thorn, Lt.-Col. J. G. (Dumbarton)


Drewe, C.
Long, Major Eric
Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)


Edge, Sir William
Looker, Herbert William
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)


Edmondson, Major A. J.
Luce, Maj.-Gen. Sir Richard Harman
Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell


Elliot, Major Walter E.
Lynn, Sir R. J.
Tltchfield, Major the Marquess of


Ellis, R. G.
MacAndrew Major Charles Glen
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s.-M.)
Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)
Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.


Erskine, James Malcolm Montelth
Macintyre, Ian
Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.


Evans, Captain A. (Cardiff, South)
McLean, Major A.
Warrender, Sir Victor


Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Unlver.)
Macmillan, Captain H.
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


Everard, W. Lindsay
Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Malcolm
Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)


Falle, Sir Bertram G.
Macqulsten, F. A.
Watts, Sir Thomas


Fanshawe, Captain G D.
Maltiand, Sir Arthur D. Steel-
Wells, S. R.


Fenby, T. D.
Makins. Brigadier-General E.
White, Lieut.-Col. Sir G. Dalrympla-


Fermoy, Lord
Margesson, Captain D.
Williams. A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)


Ford, Sir P. J.
Marriott, Sir J. A. R.
Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)


Forrest, W.
Mason, Colonel Glyn K.
Wilson, R. R. (Stafford. Lichfield)


Foster, Sir Harry S.
Milne, J. S. Wardlaw
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Foxcroft, Captain C. T.
Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)
Wolmer, Viscount


Fraser, Captain Ian
Mitchell, W. Foot (Saffron Walden)
Womersley, W. J.


Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)
Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley


Gadle, Lieut.-Col. Anthony
Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.
Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.


Galbralth, J. F. W.
Moore, Sir Newton J.
Wright, Brig.-General W. D.


Ganzoni, Sir John
Moreing, Captain A. H.



Gates, Percy
Nail, Colonel Sir Joseph
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Gault, Lieut.-Col. Andrew Hamilton
Nelson, Sir Frank
Captain Wallace and Captain
Bowyer.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN (Mr. Dennis Herbert): Mr. Ammon.

Mr. BENN: On a point of Order. I handed in a manuscript Amendment, in line 25, to leave out the words "Communications Company."

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I would ask the hon. Member to 'explain how it would make any sense at all.

Mr. BENN: It is the custom of the House to move to leave out words or Subsections in order to get an explanation. It is true that the Amendment does not read, but it is put with the customary practice of getting an explanation.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: An Amendment which is moved for that purpose must be of such a form as to be
effective and one which would not have the effect of making the Bill absurd. The hon. Member's Amendment is to leave out the words "Communications Company," but I cannot accept that because the whole of the rest of the Bill is based upon what will be arranged with the Communications Company.

Mr. BENN: Would it be in order to leave out the words "to the Communications Company"? That would make sense.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: No, I am afraid it would not. The hon. Member has to make some totally different Amendment. This Communications Company is referred to all through the Bill.

Mr. BENN: I will refer to it on the Question, "That the Clause stand apart of the Bill."

Mr. AMMON: I beg to move, in page 3, line 27, to leave out the word "twenty-eight" and to insert instead thereof the word "thirty."
This may seem quite a trivial matter, but, having regard to the discussions which have taken place this afternoon and on previous occasions, it is more important than appears at first blush. We have had great difficulty in getting the necessary information in order to understand all the implications of this Bill and all that has transpired previous to its appearance. Within the last few minutes, we have had from the Secretary of State for the Dominions the reply to a question to which we have been striving to get an answer for six months. That is an indication of our difficulties. I am moving to alter the date in order that we may be supplied with fuller information particularly with regard to the evidence submitted to the Imperial Conference, which caused them to alter their previous decisions. We might also have information as to why Professor Eccles and other distinguished persons were not called upon to give evidence. This is necessary that the public may be informed.
We are parting with a valuable property belonging to the public, and one which is in some senses an essential service. It ought to be maintained and owned by the State, particularly in times of disagreement with other Powers, as otherwise we would be exposed to very
great dangers. That was our experience during the last War. Difficulties arose owing to the leakage of information, and action had to be taken in order to bring the cables wholly under the control of the Government. It is difficult to discuss this important problem within the compass of the Bill, but it is necessary to have this information that we may discuss it with greater clarity than at present. Two years would give ample time to get that information, especially as there is every likelihood of a change of Government within that time and other persons may then occupy the Front Bench who will be imbued with a greater sense of their responsibility to the public than the present Government. This delay will also give the Postmaster-General time to consult with his administrative colleagues, so that he may hand on their views to his successor, who will not be so likely to part with these services.

Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: I do not want to be disrespectful to the hon. Gentleman or to speak discourteously of his Amendment, but, of course, this is purely a wrecking Amendment, which, if carried, would destroy the whole scheme and finance upon which the proposals have been based. The terms of sale and every figure given throughout the whole of the White Paper are based upon the consideration as they are at the e of the financial year 31st March, 1928. The hon. Gentleman is asking the Committee to start again. I am certainly not prepared to assent to such a proposal. He must remember that the Conference was called because an emergency had arisen owing to the effects of the increasing competition of the beam with the cable services. The Financial Secretary has already explained the position as regards the Pacific cables and has frankly told the Committee that the earnings of the Pacific cable have been dwindling. When the next Clause is reached, he will explain the position of the West Indian cables, and, when the Imperial Cables are reached, I will tell the Committee that their earnings have reached vanishing point. His Majesty's Government in Great Britain would be very loth to go on in this way for two or three years, and it is clear that that view is equally and even more emphatically shared by the other partner Govern-
ments. Under these circumstances, I could not agree to an Amendment which would delay the operation of this Bill for two years.

Mr. BENN: The object of this Amendment is to give time. We are very much in the dark about this Bill. This is the very first day that we have had any statement from the Post Office. We are selling something to a thing called the Communications Company. Does it exist? If it does not, is it unreasonable to ask for a few months to enable this purchaser to come into existence There is a scheme for a merger. Has it happened? We are to have so many directors. Have their names been put forward? Is it unreasonable to ask for a little time before we sell? The Postmaster-General cannot say whether it exists. Perhaps the Financial Secretary or the Secretary of State for Scotland knows? I ask an hon. Member with a special significance in these Debates, the hon. Member for the City of London (Mr. E. C. Grenfell), whether it is unreasonable to move for a little delay before we hand over these things, whether valuable or not, to some company, the existence of which is in some doubt and as to the control of which nothing has been laid down by the Committee.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: The Postmaster-general told us that we were not the only parties in this little—how shall I call it—frame-up. I wish he would not look so pained. I will give my reasons why I use that term in a moment. It means a thing fixed up beforehand and about which you afterwards produce the necessary evidence to prove that it was the only thing that could be done.

Major-General Sir NEWTON MOORE: Where did you learn all that?

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Where the hon. and gallant Member learned some of his phrases. I learned it with His Majesty's Forces where he learned much of his choice vocabulary. We all feel sorry for the Postmaster-General who has to part with his assets and with a successful service. He tells us that the Indian and Dominion Governments are concerned. On this Conference which was set up the Chairman, the Secretary of State for Scot-
land, and his assistant and right hand man, the Financial Secretary to the Treasury—dare I call him Sancho to his Don Quixote—were the representatives of this House. Let us see what witnesses they called. Their names are on page 22 of this report. Every one of the witnesses was associated either with the Canadian Marconi Company, the Marconi Wireless Company, the Indo-European Company, or the Eastern and Associated Telegraph Companies. We had Lord Inverforth and Mr. Kellaway who is associated with the Board of the Marconi Company and who is a predecessor of the right hon. Gentleman. Another witness who was called was Mr. Brand, who has been mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for West Bristol (Mr. W. Baker) in one or two Debates, and who, apparently, had some function to perform. Several witnesses of this kind were called, but earlier in the day the Postmaster-General referred to the Government's adviser, Professor Eccles—

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I must remind the hon. and gallant Gentleman that we have passed through that earlier in the Debate. We have now passed from the general discussion to the simple question whether the date shall be altered from 1928 to 1930.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I am going immediately to hinge my remarks on the question of the date. I ask for more delay because there are still undisclosed details, one of which I was referring to. This expert, who has given such valuable advice, was not called before this Conference, and, because the witnesses were chosen to give a certain kind of evidence, I consider that the matter should not be rushed through in this way, and that to bring it into operation as from the 1st April, 1928, is an undue acceleration of the business. It is particularly objectionable because it is being done by a dying Government in the last months of its term of office. It is making good business for its friends in these last months; I have previously referred to the extraordinary dealing which has been done on the Stock Exchange as a result of this business.
The country ought to have a chance of speaking its mind on this business, and we ought to try and save the Govern-
ment from doing this until they have faced the electorate. It is part of a deliberate policy of doing these things while they have the opportunity. One day it is the London County Council tramways; soon it will be the Export Credits Department of the Department of Overseas Trade. All these nice little pickings are being got rid of while the Government are in office. This is a sort of reverse spoil system. In some foreign countries, whenever the Government is changed, they give all their friends jobs; they change their officials from the Postmaster-General down to the very postmen. This is the spoil system before the Government go out of office. I am not making any personal accusations against the two Ministers who were members of the Conference, but I accuse them of having been made to do certain things which were a bad bargain for the Government. They were easy game for the extremely clever financial brains behind this whole movement. They could have made a far better bargain if they had used the greatest bargaining asset that they had, namely, their whole control of the beam wireless system, on which they could have got any terms.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I am afraid that the hon. and gallant Member might hang by hinges a great many things on to this discussion which cannot be got inside the Amendment.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I will only say that, in view of the approaching end of the Government, a further delay of two years would be decent.

Mr. W. BAKER: I support this Amendment, because I think that anyone acquainted with the history of the deals which have taken place in regard to wireless communication in this country will agree that there has been no consistent policy in the past, and that a change of Government has on at least one occasion caused a complete reversal of the policy which otherwise would have been pursued. Had it not been for the short period during which the Labour party was in office, we should not have been faced with this problem to-day, because the State would not have secured control of the beam wireless stations in this country. I venture to hope, if not to predict, that this subject
is gradually becoming a subject of interest to the general electorate in this country. Rightly or wrongly, they are beginning to share our point of view, and, rightly or wrongly, even some Members on the other side are not quite satisfied that everything is as it should be. The hon. Member for the City of London (Mr. E. C. Grenfell), to whom I referred earlier, does share our fears to some small extent. In these circumstances, I would plead that these assets, which are not directly referred to in the Bill, but which are intimately connected with the matter that we are discussing, should not be taken from the State by a Government which has not the confidence of the people, which never had the confidence of the people—[Interruption]—and which is quite certain, so far as indications can tell us anything, to receive a very heavy defeat on its next appeal to the country. This matter is one on which the general electorate have a right to be heard. It has been extraordinarily difficult for then to know the facts, because of the attitude, not only of the Government, but of the newspapers which serve them so well. I am certain that our plea for delay will appear perfectly reasonable to a very large section of the citizens of this country.

Mr. WELLOCK: I also support the Amendment, for the reason that by 1930 we shall know much more about the realities of the situation, particularly in its financial aspect, than we know at present. The beam wireless is a new service, but, although it has only been in operation for a very short time, it has had an enormous effect on the cable services. If that has been the case during the last year or so, we shall by 1930 know almost exactly what the situation will be, and shall be able to avoid the necessity for paying more than scrap prices for a service which will probably be a scrapped plant by that time. While the Postmaster-General was lamenting the fact that the cables are worth comparatively little to-day, and we may be losing money in a year or two, he forgot to mention the beam wireless, which, of course, cannot come into this discussion, but which nevertheless ought to be kept in our minds. The beam wireless service is the milch cow which is outisde the House of Commons for the moment, as it were, but all the time we are relying
upon it, and we need not worry about what we are going to lose on the cables, because we shall gain abundantly through the beam wireless. Not only need we not worry about losing on the cables at present, but, through the development of the beam wireless service, we could avoid having to pay enormous sums, as we are presumably going to do, for cables which are deteriorating, and which by 1930 will be recognised as having to be sold at scrap prices.

Mr. MALONE: There is another reason for postponing the date for two years, and that is the site of the new central offices which are going to be used by these companies. We have heard a great deal to-day about the nebulous merger and the nebulous Communications Company. Some people seem to assert that they exist, and some seem to assert that they do not. According to my information, they are beginning very actively to function. I understand that they have already entered into a contract to take over the old Education Office of the London County Council on the Embankment, in order to centralise the different services which are now performed by the Post Office.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I do not quite understand how the hon. Member can bring that in.

Mr. MALONE: With all respect, this cable is now operated from the Central Telegraph Office at the General Post Office, but it is proposed to operate it from another site, which I am going to show is unsatisfactory.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: It is not proposed in this Bill.

Mr. MALONE: I am dealing with the date of taking over. I do not want this undertaking to be taken over until we are quite sure that the Postmaster-General has approved of the arrangements for handing it over at this end, and I support the proposal to postpone the date for two years in order that the matter may be given further consideration. The time suggested may be too long, but I support the Amendment because the new site is not the best site for a central telegraph office. The bulk of the business which is handled by the lines that are dealt with in this para-
graph is not the business of the Chambers of Commerce, to which the Financial Secretary referred, but is the business of financial houses in the City. The General Post Office is very conveniently situated near the financial centre of the City, and there are underground cables between the Central Telegraph Office and the sub-offices in the City—

Sir W. LANE-MITCHELL: You have said that already.

Mr. MALONE: I have had no reply yet. If this is going to be moved on to the Embankment, it will be put further away, and it will be necessary to build new underground systems, pneumatic tubes, and so on—

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member may be able to get this in—I am not saying that he can or cannot—on some other Amendment, but he cannot get it in on a discussion of the arrangement which it is the object of this Amendment to make.

Mr. MALONE: I content myself, then, with saying that I hope the Postmaster-General has considered whether this new site is suitable as a central telegraph office for this country, both from the business and from the strategical point of view, and whether—

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: That is the point which I have ruled that the hon. Member cannot raise on this Amendment.

Mr. MALONE: I support the Amendment because I think that the site is not suitable, and that the decision should be postponed for two years in order to give the matter further consideration.

Mr. KELLY: I rise to support the Amendment, and to ask whether we can have some more explanation than has been given up to the present. We are being asked, on the 6th December, 1928, to approve of this merger being operative as from a date many months before the introduction of this Bill. [Interruption.] I agree that the 1st April is a Saint's day, but I am anxious to know why it is that we are given no explanation of the choice of that date, and are being asked in December to approve of this being operative as from the 1st April this year. I suggest that it is to the benefit of the country and to the benefit
of the people of this country that this matter should be held up for a further two years, in order to afford an opportunity of examining the whole position, so that it may be well understood when it comes into operation. At this moment it is not understood, and there are excellent reasons for many of the suspicions which have been voiced in this Chamber. It has the appearance—one may not be justified in saying more than that—of being rushed because it is not considered wise that people should have a complete understanding of what is being done. The Government might well accept this Amendment and postpone the date till 1930, so that the matter may be thrashed out and may be well understood by the people who are really concerned with this merger, and who probably by that time will realise that it would be far better to have it in their own hands than to pass it over to the merger company.

Mr. A. V. ALEXANDER: I should like to say a word on the Amendment from the point of view of the users of the services. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for North Aberdeen (Mr. Benn) that I do not see any particular merit in the actual date of 1930, but we are entitled to use the Amendment to get information which seems to me to be essential. The Secretary of State for the Dominions was present with me last night at a function in connection with a very large trading organisation which has depots and businesses in all parts of the Empire, as well as certain foreign countries, and they are typical of a large number of other organisations which will have to depend in the future increasingly upon the services to be rendered by the new form of international communication. There was every hope in our hearts that, with the extraordinary success achieved by the Postmaster-General and his staff in that direction, we should have considerably cheaper international communication for business purposes in future.
I am not going to suggest, without further information, that it is now to be said that our hopes are necessarily doomed to disappointment for certainty. That remains to be seen, but I ask the Postmaster-General whether he considers that the great users of these services have really had adequate time to consider the scheme and to have made plain to them
whether the safeguards suggested have actually been well and truly laid. I cannot find in the Report, not in the report of the Debate in the House, anything which will give complete confidence to the large users of the service in that direction, and I really think there is a case, either for delay or for a much fuller statement as to what the safeguards are.
I gather some statement has been made that a resolution or two has been received from bodies like the Association of Chambers of Commerce, a very important but mixed body, composed of all classes of traders, financiers, stockholders, and some, no doubt, who will be interested in the matter from many points of view, but I want it looked at from the point of view mainly of the user of the services, and the effect of that use on the service and on the general trade and interest of the country. There are large numbers of users who cannot be found in the membership of the Association of Chambers of Commerce—I am sure the Financial Secretary will not deny that—and some of them are quite important trading bodies. Have they been consulted? Have they been asked for their opinion? If they have not, is there anything yet formulated in the scheme of the Government which will give them adequate protection in regard to their use of the services? I cannot find anything. I might change my view if the Postmaster-General would go a little further.
I understand from the Report that there is to be an Advisory Committee and that there is to be an understanding that rates cannot be advanced without consultation with the Advisory Committee. How is the Advisory Committee going to be constituted? I think we are entitled to ask, before we agree to a date of a retrospective character like this, what is the protection? We are anxious to make fuller and fuller use of the new, efficient and cheaper communications, and if there is going to be anything that is likely to interfere with that, it will be a very serious thing indeed. Who is to be represented upon the Advisory Committee? What is to be their actual power in dealing with applications by the companies concerned for any possible advance in rates?

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I think, on consideration, the hon. Gentleman will
come to the conclusion that this will be better discussed on a substantive Amendment later on.

Mr. ALEXANDER: The point you make, Sir, is one that we must bear in mind, but, when we are dealing with the date of the operation of the scheme, it would facilitate business if the Government would make the statement for which we are asking them. If you are going to give adequate representation to the large users of the cable service on the Advisory Committee, and if the Advisory Committee is going to have fairly adequate powers in dealing either with inefficiency of service or with the advancing of rates, my mind would be very much more at ease than it is at present. [Interruption.] Whatever forecast we make from either side—and forecasts are not confined to this side of the House; I have observed some of the Postmaster-General's speeches in the country—after all, we are going to put something on the Statute Book, and, before we do that, we are entitled to ask for these safeguards for these large and important users of the service.

Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: There is an Amendment later on, which is to be moved as a new Clause, dealing specifically with the constitution of the Advisory Committee and its powers. That

will be the occasion to say what I think on the matter. What the hon. Gentleman is asking me to do is to delay the operation of the Bill because he is not yet satisfied that, if and when the Advisory Committee is constituted, some of the interests with which he is concerned, or which he thinks ought to be represented, will be represented. I say that is not an adequate reason. The general terms on which the service is to be arranged and taken over have been before the country for five months. It is five months to a day since the White Paper was issued. Have the Government had representations in shoals from the traders of the country asking for delay? Not a bit. The only representation made to me was in favour of the passage of the Bill, After all, please let the hon. Gentleman remember that this is an enabling Bill. It enables the Government, and it is necessary in order to enable them, to get on with the programme which has been recommended and which they accept.

Mr. BENN: Is there such a thing as a communications company?

Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: I have already said it is not in existence, at present.

Question put, "That the word twenty-eight 'stand part of the Clause."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 197; Noes, 122.

Division No. 28.]
AYES
[7.42 p.m.


Albery, Irving James
Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)
Ford, Sir P. J.


Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.
Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)
Forrest, W.


Ashley, Lt. -Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.
Charteris, Brigadier-General J.
Foster, Sir Henry S.


Atholl, Duchess of
Christie, J. A.
Foxcroft, Captain C. T.


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Churchman, sir Arthur C.
Fraser, Captain lan


Balniel, Lord
Clayton, G. C.
Fremantle, Lieut. -Colonel Francis E.


Banks, Sir Reginald Mitchell
Cobb, Sir Cyril
Gadle, Lieut. -Col. Anthony


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.
Galbralth, J. F. W.


Beckett, Sir Gervase (Leeds, N.)
Colfox, Major William Phillips
Ganzoni, Sir John


Bellairs, Commander Carlyon
Cooper, A. Duff
Gates, Percy


Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)
Cope, Major Sir William
Gault, Lieut. -Col. Andrew Hamilton


Berry, Sir George
Couper, J. B.
Gilmour, Lt. -Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John


Bird, E. R. (Yorks. W. R. Skipton)
Cowan, Sir Win. Henry (Islington, N.)
Glyn, Major R. G. C.


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Craig, Sir Ernest (Chester, Crewe)
Goff, Sir Park


Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart
Crawfurd, H. E.
Grant, Sir J. A.


Bowyer, Captain G. E. W.
Crooke, J. Smedley (Derltend)
Greaves-Lord, Sir Walter


Braithwalte, Major A. N.
Culverwell, C. T. (Bristol, West)
Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)


Brass, Captain W.
Davies, Sir Thomas (Cirencester)
Grotrian, H. Brent


Briscoe, Richard George
Davies, Dr. Vernon
Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Dawson, Sir Philip
Gunston, Captain D. W.


Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.
Dean, Arthur Wellesley
Hacking, Douglas H.


Brown, Brig. -Gen. H. C. (Berks, Newb'y)
Drewe, C.
Hall, Capt. W. D'A. (Brecon & Rac.)


Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Edge, Sir William
Hammersley, S. S.


Bullock, Captain M.
Edmondson, Major A. J.
Harland, A.


Burman, J. B.
Elliot, Major Walter E.
Hartlngton, Marquess of


Calne, Gordon Hall
Ellis, R. G.
Haslam, Henry C.


Cassels, J. D.
Everard, W. Lindsay
Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley)


Cautley, Sir Henry S.
Falle, Sir Bertram G
Heneage, Lieut. -Col. Arthur P.


Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)
Fenby, T. D.
Henn, Sir Sydney H.


Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth, S.)
Fermoy, Lord
Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.


Herbert, S. (York, N. R., Scar. & Wh'by)
Moore, Sir Newton J.
Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westm'eland)


Hills, Major John Waller
Moreing, Captain A. H.
Steel, Major Samuel Strang


Hilton, Cecil
Nall, Colonel Sir Joseph
Stott, Lieut. -Colonel W. H.


Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar)
Nelson, Sir Frank
Strauss, E. A.


Howard-Bury, Colonel C. K.
Neville, Sir Reginald J.
Stuart, Crichton-, Lord C.


Hudson, R. S. (Cumberl'nd, Whlteh'n)
 Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Hume, Sir G. H.
Nicholson, O. (Westminster)
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid


Hurd, Percy A.
Nicholson, Col. Rt. Hon. W. S. (Ptrsf'ld.)
Tasker, R. Inigo.


Hutchison, sir Robert (Montrose)
Nield, Rt. Hon. Sir Herbert
Templeton, w. P.


Iliffe, Sir Edward M.
Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William
Them, Lt. -Col. J. G. (Dumbarton)


James, Lieut. -Colonel Hon. Cuthbert
Owen, Major G.
Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)


King, Commodore Henry Douglas
Penny, Frederick George
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)


Knox, Sir Alfred
Perkins, Colonel E. K.
Thomson, Rt. Hon. sir W. Mitchell-


Lamb, J. Q.
Perring, sir William George
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Little, Dr. E. Graham
Power, Sir John Cecil
Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.


Livingstone, A. M.
Price, Major C. W. M.
Wallace, Captain D. E.


Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley)
Raine, Sir Walter
Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.


Loder, J. de V.
Rees, Sir Beddoe
Warrender, Sir Victor


Long, Major Erie
Reid, D. D. (County Down)
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


Looker, Herbert William
Renter, J. R.
Watson, Rt, Hon. W. (Carlisle)


Luce, Maj. -Gen. Sir Richard Harmar
 Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)
Watts, Sir Thomas


Lynn, Sir R. J.
Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Hennell
Wells, S. R.


MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen
Ropner, Major L,
White, Lieut. -Col. Sir G. Dalrymple


Macdonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)
Ruggles-Brise, Lieut. -Colonel E. A.
Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)


Macintyre, Ian
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)
Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)


McLean, Major A.
Sandeman, N. Stewart
Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)


Macmillan, Captain H.
Sanders, Sir Robert A.
Windsor-Cilve, Lieut. -Colonel George


Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Malcolm
Sandon, Lord
Wolmer, Viscount


Macquisten, F. A.
Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D
Womersley, W. J.


Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel-
Savery, S. S.
Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley


Makins, Brigadier-General E.
Shaw, Lt. -Col. A. D. Mcl. (Renfrew. W.)
Woodcock, Colonel H. C.


Marriott, Sir J. A. R.
Sheffield, Sir Berkeley
Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon, Sir L.


Milne, J. s. Wardlaw-
Skelton, A. N.
Wright, Brig. -General W. D.


Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)
Smith, R. W. (Aberd'nt Klne'aine. c.)



Mitchell, W. Foot (Saffron Walden)
Smithers, Waldron
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)
Spender-Clay, Colonel H.
Captain Margesson and Major


Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.
Stanley, Lord (Fylde)
The Marquess of Titchfield.


NOES.


Adamson. Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)
Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burnley)
Shepherd, Arthur Lewis


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Henderson, T. (Glasgow)
Shiels, Dr. Drummond


Alexander, A. v. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')
Hirst, G. H.
Shinwell, E.


Ammon, Charles George
Hirst, W. (Bradlord, South)
Slesser. Sir Henry H.


Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bllston)
Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfkfd)
Smillie, Robert


Baker, Walter
Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)
Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithel


Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)
John, William (Rhondda, West)
Snell, Harry


Barnes, A.
Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)
Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip


Barr, J.
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Stamford, T. W.


Batey, Joseph
Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)
Stephen, Campbell


Beckett, John (Gateshead)
Kelly, W. T.
Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)


Bellamy, A.
Kennedy, T.
Sullivan, J.


Benn, Wedgwood
Kenworthy, Lt. -Com. Hon. Joseph M.
Sutton, J. E.


Bondfield, Margaret
Kirkwood, D.
Taylor, R. A.


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Lawrence, Susan
Thomas, Rt. Hon. James H. (Derby)


Broad, F. A.
Lawson, John James
Thome. W. (West Ham, Plalstow)


Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)
Lee, F.
Thurtle, Ernest


Buchanan, G.
Lunn, William
(Inker, John Joseph


Cape, Thomas
Mackinder, W.
Tomlinson, R, P.


Cluse, W. S.
Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton)
Townend, A. E.


Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.
Maxton, James
Viant, S. P.


Compton, Joseph
Montague, Frederick
Wallhead, Richard C.


Connolly, M.
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Walsh, Rt. Hon. Stephen


Cove, W. G.
Mosley, Sir Oswald
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)


Dalton, Hugh
Murnln, H.
Weilock, Wilfred


Day, Harry
Naylor, T. E.
welsh, J. C.


Dunnico, H.
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
Westwood, J.


Gardner, J. P.
Oliver, George Harold
Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.


Gibbins, Joseph
Palin, John Henry
Whlteley, W


Gillett, George M.
Paling, W.
Wilkinson, Ellen C.


Gosling, Harry
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.
Williams, David (Swansea, East)


Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Potts, John S.
Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)


Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edln., Cent.)
Pureed, A. A.
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Greenall, T,
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercllffe)


Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)
Riley, Ben
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Ritson, J.
Windsor, Walter


Griffith, F, Kingsley
Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O. (W. Bromwich)
Wright, W.


Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Saklatvala, Shapurji
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton*


Grundy, T. W.
Salter, Dr. Alfred



Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)
Scrymgeour, E.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Hardie, George D.
Sexton, James
Mr. Allen Parkinson and Mr.Charles Edwards.


Hayday, Arthur
Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Pruston)

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: With regard to the remaining Amendments to Clause 1, none of them is in order, at any rate at this stage.

Mr. BENN: I submit that it is not in order to put this Clause to the Committee, because it says in paragraph (b), in page 3, that certain sums
shall … continue to be charged on and paid out of the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom.
Naturally, a charge on the Consolidated Fund must depend upon a Money Resolution. There has been no Money Resolution to this Bill, and therefore I submit that it is not possible to put that Question from the Chair.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I think that these words must be taken really as an extra precaution. The whole of this scheme is merely to provide for the receipt of money and for what is to be done with that money when it is received. The charge of the annuities upon the Consolidated Fund exists at present. No new charge is being put on it at all, but naturally, as part of the annuities are paid off from time to time they have to be precalculated from time to time.

Mr. BENN: With great respect, Mr. Hope apparently was under that impression when the point was raised at an earlier stage on the Clause. I submit with very great earnestness that it is impossible for the State to assume contingent liability without a Money Resolution of this House. Nothing is more clearly laid down. I submit that it is impossible unless there is an existing Money Resolution covering this matter. We cannot make a contingent charge on the Consolidated Fund without a resolution passed in Committee of the House.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member is, of course, perfectly right in his statement as to what cannot be done without a Money Resolution, but in this case, these annuities have been charged on and paid out of the Consolidated Fund for a great many years past. I am fairly certain that had they not been properly supported by a Financial Resolution, the question would have been raised. At any rate, it is too late to raise the question as to whether they were properly supported by a Financial
Resolution when they were first charged. The words are merely a recital of the fact that a charge which exists is not to be interfered with.

Mr. BENN: You, Mr. Deputy-Chairman, are the guardian of the rights of the Members of this Committee. It is the fact that there was originally the Money Resolution guaranteeing a number of these annuities in the Pacific Cable Act, 1927. In this Clause that Money Resolution has been repealed as from 1st April last.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: May I interrupt the hon. Member for one moment? There is no question of repealing a Money Resolution.

Mr. BENN rose—

Sir W. LANE MITCHELL: Draw it in.

Mr. BENN: If the hon. Gentleman would assist the business of the Committee with an occasional articulate contribution instead of constant and, I think, unmannerly interruptions, it would be better. The case which I am submitting is this: There is a contingent charge created. No doubt a contingent charge requires a prior Money Resolution. That is your reply on the matter.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: No. I did not say that a contingent charge is created or that any charge is created by the words of this Clause. The hon. Member has failed to satisfy me on the point that any new charge is being created.

Mr. BENN: I submit that even an annuity, unless otherwise provided for, is a charge upon the Consolidated Fund. The wording of the Clause states that these annuities shall—I leave out the word "continue"—"be charged on and paid out of, the Consolidated Fund." I submit that it is quite impossible to create a charge or contingent charge upon the Consolidated Fund without a Financial Resolution. My statement, further, is that in regard to the Act of 1927, there was a Money Resolution empowering this House to create a contingent charge. But what the Government have overlooked is that in paragraph (c) they have repealed Section 5 of the Act of 1927 which, passed as it was no doubt upon a Money Resolution,
authorised this charge. Therefore, the Government in their endeavour to avoid a Money Resolution—this point was raised at the very beginning when the Bill was first mentioned—have gone too far. I submit that it is impossible for you, Mr. Deputy-Chairman, to put from the Chair a Clause which creates a contingent charge on the Consolidated Fund when the only Money Resolution on which it could ever have been based is repealed by the Clause itself.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: No, I am unable to see that the hon. Member has a case. He cannot make a case by quoting words from the Bill with the omission of the word "continue." The whole point of my Ruling is that no charge is created here. The charge exists and is stated to be continuing and the hon. Member apparently suggested that whatever power there was to make such a charge is repealed by some other part of the Bill.

Mr. BENN: That is just it.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: Any intention of that sort is negatived by these prior words here, which prevent anything of that kind. The words, as I first said, are of a precautionary nature and are only really for the purpose of continuing the existing charge. They do not create any new charge either contingent or otherwise.

Mr. BENN: I apologise for pressing this point, but in the Act of 1927 you will find these words:
The [Government] share of such deficiency shall be paid out of moneys provided by Parliament.
That was based upon a Money Resolution, and it became an Act of Parliament. That is now repealed and to use the word "continue" when there is no such provision in existence as far as this Subsection is concerned and there has not been since the 1st April, I submit makes plain the need for another Money Resolution. That is what I submit to you, Mr. Deputy-Chairman.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: Will the hon. Member read a little further and he will see that they are not completely repealed. They are repealed subject to a proviso that nothing in this repeal shall affect the operation of the Sub-section.

Mr. BENN: I would point out that it may be that such a meaning can be read into those words, but, as a matter of fact, the contingent charge on the moneys provided by Parliament or on the Consolidated Fund is quite a minor item in this Sub-section. The Section deals with all sorts of other matters, and of course this provision deals with all material parts of the Section. But that part of the Section with regard to the charge on the Fund I submit is repealed. I put this point to you, Sir, in the interests of the Committee.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I am very much obliged to the hon. Gentleman for the way in which he has argued this matter. I am quite satisfied that the words here are such that his case is impossible. They are merely precautionary words to continue this charge.
Motion made, and Question proposed,
That the Clause stand part of the Bill.

Mr. TINKER: I want to take objection to Clause 1 standing part of the Bill. I think the Committee will agree that on this Clause the whole of the Bill depends. The Postmaster-General told us that this was an enabling Bill. I agree with him on that, and it is because of that that I object to it. The Government have no right to ask for power to sell undertakings that are of vital importance to the community. My party represent a particular line of thought, namely, that the Government should acquire undertakings and not sell them. We are of the opinion that the time has come when the Government should have more control than they have now. Under this Bill we are going the opposite way. We are taking a backward step by selling to private concerns something of which the State ought to retain possession.
The White Paper issued in July last said that there were five things that could have been done. The fifth proposal was to amalgamate as far as possible in one undertaking all the cable and wireless interests and include the various parts of the Empire so as to have security of control and unity of direction. Why could not the State have taken over the whole of the other undertakings What is to prevent that from being done? Why should we go out of the way to hand over to other people
something which we all recognise we must keep and continue. I should have thought that the inquiry would have given us the idea that we ought to acquire all the other undertakings. The fear is that eventually the five concerns may be driven out of the market and then desire to sell out to foreigners. I do not know who these private concerns are, but, if there is any loyalty to the British Empire, there should be no thought of selling to foreign interests in a matter like this. But eventually these people, regardless of what the Empire wants, may sell out to other people if it suits them to do so. This matter is of vital importance. I do not know much about the details of the Measure, but I think that the Government have taken a wrong step, and I hope that every attempt will be made from these benches to prevent the Measure from going through.

8.0 p.m.

Mr. W. BAKER: I am sorry to have to bother the Committee again, and I am assured by my hon. Friends that it is possible to repeat at this stage everything that has been said in earlier speeches. I promise that I do not propose to follow that course. There are certain points which I consider should still be brought before the notice of the Committee, though obviously it is quite useless to try and reason with hon. Gentlemen opposite. It is important that it should be on record that this decision was taken in full knowledge of the opinions which have been expressed by important authorities in this country, and in full knowledge of the policy which is being pursued by countries overseas. I suppose the most important body which has ever dealt with this question of Imperial communications was the Imperial Wireless Telegraph Committee, presided over by Sir Henry Norman, which sat in 1919–20 and which presented its report in June, 1920. This very skilled and very technical Committee made important pronouncements with regard to the Imperial communications not only in relation to commercial affairs but also in relation to the question of strategy and the needs of the Empire in times of trouble. Although I have referred on previous occasions in general terms to these matters. I think it is important before
this Clause is agreed to that I should quote some of the very weighty pronouncements for which that Committee was responsible. On page 4, paragraph 6, they say:
The objects to be served by an Imperial scheme of wireless communications are two: strategic and commercial. Strategic needs are common in a large degree to the Navy, the Army and the Air Force. In many cases the same place will be a naval base, a military headquarters, and a centre of aviation. Such places would often be also commercial centres. Thus, strategic and commercial needs will frequently be met by the same station. Where this is not the case, the Navy requires the possibility of quick communication with every naval base in the Empire. Further, the Admiralty desires that the scheme shall afford means of transmitting naval orders to every ship of and above the class of light cruiser, wherever it may be at sea between latitude 60° north, and latitude 60° south. This last requirement, apart from the question of latitude, may he met by arranging for the substitution at any moment of hand transmission for automatic transmission in every Imperial main station.
Without continuing the quotation, I submit that the Norman Committee in that paragraph emphasised the extreme importance of Imperial wireless communication and, inferentially, made it perfectly clear that the importance of control was so great that such matters should not pass into private hands. In paragraph 9, they proceed to deal with the second half of the problem, namely, commercial requirements. They say:
In considering commercial requirements, it is necessary at the outset to define what is here meant by a satisfactory commercial wireless service. The three chief factors of this are reliability, speed and cheapness. In other words, the quality of a commercial service depends upon the number of words correctly transmitted and recorded in given time, and the charge per word. If the service aims at becoming self-supporting, while offering low rates to the public, sufficient paying traffic must ultimately he secured to keep the stations occupied for practically 24 hours a day at high speed. This cannot be done unless three conditions are fulfilled. First, the wireless route must be not only quick, but also accurate. In every commercial message there are necessarily several non-paying service words, and in a State-owned system a number of official non-paying messages must he transmitted every day; but of the remainder a high percentage must be paying words, that is, there must not he a large amount of unremunerative traffic in the shape of requests to repeat, and the repetition of, words incorrectly or only partially received. … Third, even a chain of stations fully occupied with fast and accurate traffic at a low rate would result in a heavy financial loss for generation, in-
terest, depreciation and operation, unless it had been so designed and constructed as to avoid a huge initial capital outlay and an excessive annual expenditure for maintenance and operation.
I submit that the concluding words of paragraph 9 are particularly appropriate in this discussion. A chain of stations or a series of beam stations supplemented by cable communications cannot be remunerative, and, at the same time, afford the cheapest possible means of communication unless you avoid a huge initial capital outlay. It is the strength of our case to-day that the figure which has been fixed for the capital and the conditions under which the transfer is taking place from the Government will compel a standard revenue which must have the effect upon the commercial user of making his service so much more expensive or more unsatisfactory than it would be in other circumstances.
It is important in this connection to turn to the experience of America. The American nation appears to be in no doubt on this particular matter. I understand that as a result of their experience the United States Senate in 1921 passed a Bill giving the President sweeping authority to issue, withhold and revoke licences as to cable landings and to obtain concessions for the United States of America in other parts of the world. The President in granting any such licences has power to insist that the rates and conditions shall be reasonable. The whole object of the United States Government is to guard against consolidation or amalgamation with other cable lines which may have unfortunate effects upon the position of the United States and the people of the United States. In this respect America is showing us an example which we might well follow. As I stated earlier, if we could secure adequate control, about which so far the Government have said nothing, if we could secure a majority of directors, directly nominated and representing the Government, I would have nothing to say, but the difficulty is that not only is the finance of the scheme wrong but we are failing to secure and to maintain that adequate control which the United States of America regard as being essential and overwhelmingly important. I am informed that the 'United States of America is determined to press forward its claim to the best possible service both cable and wireless,
and it is advancing towards that end in an entirely different manner from our own Government.
In conclusion, I would like to draw the attention of the Committee to a quotation from the Report of the Dominions Royal Commission of 1917, in which the view is expressed that:
At no distant date the nationalisation of private cable interests will become one of the most urgent problems for statesmanship. It appears difficult, if not impossible, to attain the desired cheapness of cable communication without interfering with the rights of private companies.
That quotation is taken from the Encylopedia Britannica. It was not selected by the author of the Encyclopedia Britannica article with a view to the present crisis, but it has a very remarkable bearing upon the present situation. As far as I know; no really first-class authority is backing the view of the Government in regard to the transfer of these interests to private hands. As far as I know, no one of standing is in agreement with them that these undertakings should be handed over without adequate and complete control being secured. We are pressing this point to-night because we believe that when the members of the Chambers of Commerce really know the facts they will clearly understand that the policy which is being pursued by the Government must mean increased rates to them, and even if it does not mean increased rates for them it means that the rates will not have been reduced they otherwise would have been.

Mr. DAVID GRENFELL: This Clause refers only to the transfer of the Pacific cable business to the Communications Company. Without any technical knowledge or intimate acquaintance with the means by which our wireless and cable services have been carried out, I have read the White Paper and I find in the first paragraph that the Committee were appointed
To examine the situation which has arisen as a result of the competition of the Beam Wireless with the Cable Services, to report thereon and to make recommendations with a view to a common policy being adopted for the various Governments concerned.
When we proceed to read this wonderful document we find that the common policy desired is not a common policy to bring about greater efficiency, not a common policy to cheapen the rates or to
link up distant parts of the Empire, but a common policy to thwart progress and to retard the improvement of communications which the Mother country and me Dominions need so much. In paragraph 10 of the Report it is stated that there have been enormous reductions since the beam wireless system, owned by the Post Office, came into competition with the cable companies. For instance, the rates to Australia have gone down from 2s. 6d. to 1s. 8d. a word.

The CHAIRMAN: This is only a limited Clause as to whether the Pacific Cable Company should be taken over. We have had a full discussion, by general consent, on the first Amendment, and I must ask the hon. Member to confine himself to the limited aspect of this Clause.

Mr. GRENFELL: As we are still on the Motion that the Clause stand part. I thought that I was allowed to cover the same ground. If not then my task is very easy because I do not know the technical reasons for the change. I look at it from the standpoint of a citizen of this country, and I think it is a serious thing that national property should he handed over to a private company without a single advantage accruing from the national point of view. There is no reason why this change should be made, so far as the ordinary man can see. The White Paper itself, where argument upon argument is piled up against the proposal, is the most powerful indictment of the proposals in this Bill, which is supposed to be based on this Report. Referring to the present beam rates the Report says:

The CHAIRMAN: This Clause has nothing to do with the beam rates. It authorises the Board to sell the Pacific Cable undertaking, that is the whole question. With the general consent of the Committee it was understood that there should he a general discussion on the first Amendment and if, when that has taken place, we are to have it all over again on the Motion of the Clause standing part it will be really impossible to allow a discussion beyond the strict terms of the Amendment on another occasion.

Mr. BENN: Any arrangement which was come to will, I am sure, be strictly observed by hon. Members on this side of
the Committee, but was it not arranged that the discussion on the first Amendment should cover the other Amendments and that that arrangement has been most faithfully observed. I do not think there was any understanding that we should not debate the Question of the Clause standing part, because there are certain points I desire to raise myself.

The CHAIRMAN: It is quite true there was no such explicit arrangement, and the hon. Member will be in order in debating the Clause on the Question that the Clause stand part. The understanding was that the Debate on the first Amendment should cover the two following. It was not explicity stated but I think it must have been implied that we should not have the same discussion over again on the Question of the Clause standing part.

Mr. GRENFELL: I only wanted to emphasise and support what has already been said in order to show that there is a general opposition on this side of the House to the proposals contained in the Bill. The Clause deals with the sale of the Pacific cable undertaking to the Communications Company as from the 1st of April, 1928. To me this transaction is a greater mystery than ever. We do not know the price that is to be paid, in fact, we know nothing at all about the sale, and this House is being asked to approve of a sale without any price being stipulated and without knowing any of the conditions or arrangements which have been made. The Preamble to the Bill is much longer than the Bill itself. There is Clause after Clause of explanation, but when we come to the Bill itself we find that the explanation bears no relation whatever to the Bill. It is one of the most confusing Bills I have ever read and I think we are justified in refusing to pass a Clause until we get much more definite information. We owe it to the country to hold up this Bill until the Government offer some explanation or excuse for proposing to set up a system which will not cheapen wireless rates or cable rates, but which will cost the users of both cable and wireless services much more than they are paying now. The Bill protects certain cable interests and plays into the hands of those people who are monopolising these services in their own financial interests. I shall oppose most strongly this proposal to hand over the
most promising of our assets to people who will succeed in making huge fortunes for themselves by overcharging the public.

Mr. KELLY: I shall oppose this Clause, and I hope even at this stage that the Assistant Postmaster-General will make some statement which will clear up various matters which have been raised. I should like to ask whether the Post Office gave evidence before the Imperial Conference Did the Postmaster-General or the Assistant Postmaster-General, or any officer of the Department, give evidence before the Imperial Conference and put the view of the Department? Will the Noble Lord tell us what is this Communications Company? Who are these people? Let us have some idea to whom we are handing this national property. They have already commenced to take over the beam service. I know that I am not allowed to discuss the beam service, but this company has been taking over property since the 1st of April this year for which they have not the authority of this House. It has been referred to as a public utility company. In that case have similar conditions been inserted as were laid down in the Electricity Acts, 1926, which made it quite clear that Members of this House or the other House were not entitled to hold places on the Electricity Board. Are we to understand that Members of Parliament and Members of the other House will not be entitled to hold positions in this Communications Company? I think we ought to know. If we are handing over this property to this Communications Company, which is to be composed of people who sit in this House or the other then the country should be told. I ask for a full explanation of paragraph (c). Why is the Government bringing before us legislation of this nature, which asks us to repeal retrospectively the Pacific Cable Act as from 31st March last? I ask the Assistant Postmaster-General, whom I see present, to give us some information on these few points.

The CHAIRMAN: A number of Amendments dealing with the constitution and powers of the Communications Company have been handed in, and most of them are in order. The subject of the powers and constitution could properly be raised on one of those Amendments.

Mr. KELLY: Then I shall not go further at the moment. The Committee can understand our anxiety to know about this Communications Company. It has already commenced to take over the beam.

The CHAIRMAN: That is not the question at present. The question is whether the Pacific Cable Board should sell this undertaking.

Mr. KELLY: I hope that this is the last time that any Government, no matter how bad it may be, will come forward and ask for the repeal of an Act retrospectively.

Mr. HARDIE: The question before the Committee is whether the nation is to sell part of its property. Such a proposal I would oppose at all times, no matter whether it referred to a cable or anything else. This Bill would never have been introduced but for the fact that today, by the new system, we can send 400 words a minute as against the 42 under the old system. Had the beam been a failure we should quickly have been told that it was incapable of development. Behind all this is the great desire of those who have no national outlook and no patriotism. Here is a scientific invention which is likely to prove a great thing to the whole of the people of the nation, but because it is very profitable and is going to be a really good thing, it is to be legally stolen by a Bill in order to be put into the hands of those who—

The CHAIRMAN: Is the hon. Member referring to the Pacific Cable?

Mr. HARDIE: Yes, I am. But for the success of the beam wireless this Bill would not have been introduced.

The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member is not now discussing the proposal to sell the Pacific Cable.

Mr. HARDIE: I am discussing the robbery that is going on.

The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member cannot discuss that. The Pacific Cable Board is in legal possession of the cable, and all that is proposed in this Clause is that they should be able to sell it.

Mr. HARDIE: Of course the word "sell" is used in the Bill, but we use the word in another sense. We say that the nation is going to be sold by these
few words. Seeing that this thing is to be retrospective, I want to know who was consulted about the rearrangement of the staff. When evidence was being taken for the preparation of this Bill, did it contain anything about the arrangements regarding the staff? Undoubtedly the Pacific Cable Board have a staff. Are they to be sold as well? I know from the speeches of the Assistant Postmaster-General that his idea is to have everything put into private hands, so that employers can get their heels on the workers. They are very angry at seeing the nation as an employer of labour. The noble Lord shakes his head, but if he persists I shall quote his exact words, and then I shall not be in order. The Government do not separate the beam business for purchase, but they separate the cables for sale. In high business circles that would be called smart business. The whole intention of the sale is simply to destroy the national grip upon these important communications. I can see what is going to happen if the sale takes place. There will be a number of men in charge who will be able to use first-hand information to raise and lower the price of stocks and make something out of them, or it may be, by creating confusion, drive nations into war. That has happened before. My hon. Friend the Member for East Bristol (Mr. W. Baker), in the first Debate on this subject, referred to what took place during the Great War. All this has its basis in everything that is anti-national. This Clause means that the Government are without the slightest sense of patriotism and without the slightest regard for the rights of the people of Britain. They place individual property ownership in front of every national consideration. The Nation is all right in time of War when men have to go and fight for those who have created the War, but now, in a matter such as the matter of these cables, the nation comes last. With these words I intimate my strenuous opposition to this proposal.

Mr. A. M. SAMUEL rose—

Mr. KELLY: Surely, the Assistant-Postmaster General will reply to the points which we have put directly to him.

Viscount WOLMER: The Post Office has nothing to do with the Pacific Cable Board, and that is why the Financial Secretary to the Treasury proposes to reply to the criticisms which have been offered in reference to this proposal. The specific question which the hon. Member asked me as to whether the Post Office gave evidence at the Imperial Conference, raises the only point on which I can give any information. The reply to that question is that the Post Office supplied the Conference with all the information they wanted throughout their sessions. I do not think the Postmaster-General or the Secretary to the Post Office appeared as a formal witness, but if the members of the Conference wanted any information the Post Office was only too glad to give it.

Mr. KELLY: Have they commenced to take over the beam?

Viscount WOLMER: No. The Communications Company does not exist yet.

Mr. HARDIE: It is quite evident from what is appearing in the Press—and that is all we have to go upon, since we cannot get information direct from the Government—that people have been mentioned as likely to be directors.

The CHAIRMAN: That does not arise now.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: May I ask the Financial Secretary, as the watch dog of the Treasury at this Conference, how he explains the words which have been put into the mouth of the Postmaster-General to the effect that we had to sell the Pacific Cable undertaking at this knock-out price—a breakup price really—because we had no choice in the matter; that we only had 5/18ths of the shares in this Pacific cable undertaking and therefore had to accept what the financiers and the cable companies offered? It is admitted that the introduction of beam wireless was the cause of the depressed position of the private cable companies. We, having the beam wireless, and having made a great success of it—to the great delight of the Noble Lord who was thus reinforced in his belief in the Post Office and its capabilities—had immense bargaining power. Why did we not make a better bargain. That question has not been answered, and the Financial Secretary, who was
representing the Treasury, and the House, and the country, is in duty bound to see that that question is answered. We could have made practically any terms we liked, instead of which we disposed of these invaluable assets at this ridiculous price. What cost over £4,500,000 we allowed to go for just over £500,000 in ash. I address that question to the Financial Secretary, because the Post Office are washing their hands of the whole proceeding; they are yielding to force majeure and saying that they are the unhappy people who have to sign the contract finally, but that they have nothing to do with it now.

Viscount WOLMER: We have nothing at all to do with the Pacific Cable Board.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Exactly, but the Financial Secretary to the Treasury has something to do with it. He went into that Conference with 5/18th of the shares, and the great rival system of beam wireless which was making the position of the private companies so difficult. The Postmaster-General's reason will not bear a moment's examination. I notice that the witnesses called were mostly managing directors and chairmen and traffic managers of wireless companies and cable companies, financiers, entrepreneurs and so forth; but the man who was not called as a witness was the man complimented by the Postmaster-General earlier in the day, namely Professor Eccles. Why was he not called? He was responsible for the advice given to my right hon. Friend the Member for Aberavon (Mr. MacDonald) to go on with the beam; system. Why were the only witnesses called those who would bolster up the ease for selling these Government assets, at a. knock-out price, to a great combine which is being formed to the great profit of certain interets; and why were the Government's usual advisers not permitted to give evidence?

Mr. A. M. SAMUEL: I am sorry that my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Central Hull (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy) has not been in his place, and has not heard the answers which have already been given with regard to the question of price and also with regard to the question of calling Professor
Eccles as a witness. An answer on that point was given by the Postmaster-General and, if the hon. and gallant Gentleman wishes me to weary the Committee by doing so, I shall try to repeat it. As far as I remember, my right hon. Friend the Postmaster-General explained that, had the Conference wished Professor Eccles to be called, he would have been called—[Interruption]—I do not understand why hon. Gentleman opposite always take up that attitude. After all, the Secretary of State for Scotland and I are both well known to the Members of the House of Commons. We have both been in the House for a very long time and I think hon. Members know that we are neither rogues nor fools. If we thought it was necessary to do something in the interests of the country, we should do it, and, had we considered that the calling of Professor Eccles as a witness was necessary, we should not have hesitated about it. This was not, however, a technical or scientific examination. It was an examination into quite another thing. The Postmaster-General is a Privy Councillor, and he assisted, as required by the Imperial Conference.

Mr. BENN: We never made any charge of a personal character against him, but we charged him with getting rid of publicly-owned property on inadequate terms. The hon. Member says the Postmaster-General came and gave evidence.

Mr. SAMUEL: I did not say so.

Mr. BENN: But did he, in his appearance as a Privy Councillor, support the scheme or oppose it?

Mr. SAMUEL: He gave us all the information that we asked for, but he was not there as a member of the Conference.

Mr. BENN: But did he support or oppose the scheme?

Mr. SAMUEL: There may have been many points on which he may have said, "I think this should be done this way" or "If think it should be done that way."

Mr. BENN: Did he support or oppose the scheme?

Mr. SAMUEL: The Postmaster-General was complete accord with the policy of His Majesty's Government, otherwise he would not be supporting this Bill. As
to who is selling the property, we our-selves are not the owners of this Pacific cable. We are merely partners. The consequence is that the decision was taken by all the partner Governments, of which we were one, unanimously. The price recommended was regarded by our-selves and our partners, the Dominions and Colonies and India, as satisfactory. Hon. Members opposite cannot impose their will or judgment on men who know the business and who own 13/18ths of the cable. The Conference came to the conclusion that this was a fair price and recommended that it should be accepted. Hon. Members opposite say that these people do not know their business or their interests and that the price recommended should not be allowed to stand. We are not singular in this policy. The hon. Member for East Bristol said what America was doing and was not doing. I took down his words, and be said that the United States of America was showing us an example which we might follow. He seems to have overlooked a Commission which has been set up in the United States—probably he did not know of it—only very lately. I take this from a report of a cable company in America:
Only very lately in the United States a similar fusion has taken place between the International Telegraph and Telephone Corporation, the Commercial Cable Company, and the All-America Cables Incorporated, announced in the early part of this year. The All-America Cables Incorporated own cables between the United States and South America. The Commercial Cable Company, owning cables between Europe and the United States, together with a land line system in the United States, worked under the name of Postal Telegraph, and the International Telegraph and Telephone Corporation own telephones and electrical manufacturing businesses in Europe and wireless and telephones in South America. There are rumours of another American combination, the Western Union Telegraph Company, taking concerted action.

The CHAIRMAN: Is any one of these the Federal property of the United States?

Mr. SAMUEL: I apologise. I was making the point that, so far from our not doing what America is doing, we are following exactly what America is doing, according to the wish of the hon. Member for East Bristol (Mr. W. Baker). In the opinion of the Conference a fusion
will improve and cheapen the message rates, and on top of that there is a progressive community. [Interruption.] Hon. Members need not ride off by making fun of a body like—

Mr. ERSKINE: On a point of Order. Is it competent for the Financial Secretary to go through the whole of these arguments for at least the third time to-day? I have heard these very words myself three times in this Debate, and is it necessary that he should again be allowed to repeat his arguments?

The CHAIRMAN: I understood, when I agreed to a general discussion on the first Amendment, that that would not be repeated on any side, but, if that was not understood, I am afraid that these arguments are not irrelevant on either side. I shall, however, have to take this into account when any wish for a general discussion is voiced on another Clause.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: On that point of Order. May I defend the Financial Secretary by saying that we have had new matter in every one of his speeches? He has told us a plain set of facts, but he has given us new information all the time, and it is most valuable.

Mr. ERSKINE: I did not say that new matter was not brought into the discussion. What I complained of was the repetition of old arguments.

The CHAIRMAN: I was relieved of my duties before the Financial Secretary spoke on the last occasion, and therefore, I did not hear the whole of his arguments, and I cannot say if this is repetition. If he transgresses the Rules of Order, I hope I shall show him no more leniency than I should any other hon. Member.

Mr. SAMUEL: I have transgressed. I have been over this ground before, but—

Mr. BENN: No. this is quite a new point. The hon. Gentleman spoke of the Dominions, but not about the rather special position occupied by the South African Government in these decisions.

Mr. SAMUEL: I apologise for having gone over the ground again. I did not wish to do so, but as a matter of fact, out of courtesy to the hon. and gallant
Member for Central Hull (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy), I rose. I hope we shall now go to a Division.

Mr. AMMON: So far as I am aware, the Committee has not transgressed the understanding with you, Mr. Chairman, and has endeavoured to keep strictly to your Ruling, but I ask the Committee to look at this Clause and to see the absolutely absurd position in which we are placing ourselves. We are asked, first, to give power to the Government to sell an undertaking to the Communications Company as from the 1st April, 1928; that is to say, we are to sell this undertaking from a date already past to a company that does not exist. That is one of the most extraordinary things that this House has ever been called upon to do. One has heard the saying about buying a pig in a poke, but what we are doing here is buying a pig in a poke and selling it to a man who is not there. Further, it goes on to say that the amount of the share of His Majesty's Government shall be a certain proportion, but what that proportion is we do not know. It is a certain percentage of an unknown number, so that we are selling the cable

from a past date to a company that is not yet in existence for an amount of money that we do not know and on terms to be understood, and on that information the Government are seriously asking this Committee to part with a valuable Government monopoly. Again and again reference has been made to the amount of money that is proposed to be paid for it. It has been called a knock-out price, but that is not a fair estimate of this at all. The whole of this thing ought to have been gauged, like any other business, on the wider implications of the whole scheme. This is merely part of a bigger scheme which is intended to take in something else. The other thing is to give the value to this, and that ought to have had its part in fixing this price. The Committee ought to be clear of the absurd position in which the Government are placing them, and the extraordinary thing which the Government are asking them to do.

Question put, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 178; Noes, 117.

Division No. 29.]
AYES.
[8.57 p.m.


Albery, Irving James
Davies, Sir Thomas (Cirencester)
Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.


Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)
Davies, Dr. Vernon
Hope, Capt. A. O. J. (Warw'k, Nun.)


Balniel, Lord
Dawson, Sir Philip
Hope, Sir Harry (Forlar)


Banks, Sir Reginald Mitchell
Dean, Arthur Wellesley
Howard-Bury, Colonel C. K.


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Drewe, C.
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M.(Hackney, N.)


Bellairs, Commander Carlyon
Edmondson, Major A. J.
Hume, Sir G. H.


Berry, Sir George
Ellis, R. G.
Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose)


Birchall, Major J. Dearman
Ersklne, James Malcolm Monteith
Iliffe. Sir Eoward M.


Bird, E. R. (Yorks, W. R., Skipton)
Evans, Capt. Ernest (Weish Univer.)
King, Commodore Henry Douglas


Boothby, R. J. G.
Everard, W. Lindsay
Knox, Sir Alfred


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Fenby, T. D.
Lamb, J. Q.


Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart
Fermoy, Lord
Little, Dr. E. Graham


Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W.
Ford, Sir P. J.
Livingstone, A. M.


Braithwaite, Major A. N.
Forrest, W.
Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley)


Brass, Captain W.
Foster, Sir Harry S.
Loder, J. da V.


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Foxcroft, Captain C. T.
Looker, Herbert William


Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.
Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Luce, Major-Gen. Sir Richard Harman


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H.C.(Berks,Newb'y)
Gadle, Lieut.-Col. Anthony
Lynn, Sir R. J.


Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Galbraith, J. F. W.
MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen


Burman, J, B.
Ganzoni, Sir John
Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)


Cassets, J. D.
Gates, Percy
Macintyre, Ian


Cautley, Sir Henry S.
Gault, Lieut.-Col. Andrew Hamilton
McLean, Major A.


Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)
Gilmour, Lt.-Col, Rt. Hon. Sir John
Maltland, Sir Arthur D. Steel-


Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)
Gower, Sir Robert
Makins, Brigadier-General E.


Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)
Grace, John
Margesson, Captain D.


Charteris, Brigadier-General J.
Greaves-Lord, Sir Walter
Marriott, Sir J. A. R.


Christie, J. A.
Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)
Mason, Colonel Glyn K.


Churchman, Sir Arthur C.
Grotrian, H. Brent
Milne, J. S. Wardlaw-


Clayton, G. C.
Hacking, Douglas H.
Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Hall, Capt. W. D'A. (Brecon & Rad.)
Mitchell, W. Foot (Saffron Walden)


Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D,
Hammersiey, S. S.
Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)


Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips
Harland, A.
Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.


Colman, N. C. D.
Hartington, Marquess of
Moore, Sir Newton J.


Cooper, A. Duff
Haslam, Henry C.
Moreing, Captain A. H.


Couper, J. B.
Henderson, Capt. R.R. (Oxf'd,Henley)
Nail, Colonel Sir Joseph


Cowan, Sir Wm. Henry (Islington, N.)
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.
Nelson, Sir Frank


Craig, Sir Ernest (Chester, Crewe)
Henn, Sir Sydney H.
Neville, Sir Reginald J.


Crooke, J. Smedley (Derltend)
Hills, Major John Waller
Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)


Culverwell, C. T. (Bristol, West)
Hilton, Cecil
Nicholson, O. (Westminster)


Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William
Shaw, Lt.-Col. A. D. Mcl.(Renfrew,W.)
Wallace, Captain D. E.


Owen, Major G.
Skelton, A. N.
Warrender, Sir Victor


Penny, Frederick George
Smith, R. W.(Aberd'n & Kinc'dlne.C.)
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


Perkins, Colonel E. K.
Smithers, Waldron
Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)


Power, Sir John Cecil
Spender-Clay, Colonel H.
Watts, Sir Thomas


Preston, Sir Walter (Cheltenham)
Stanley, Lord (Fylde)
Wells, S. R.


Price, Major C. W. M.
Stanley. Hon. 0. F. G. (Westm'eland)
White, Lieut.-Col. Sir G. Dalrymple-


Raine, Sir Walter
Steel, Major Samuel Strang
Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)


Rees, Sir Beddoe
Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.
Williams. Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)


Reid, D. D. (County Down)
Strauss, E. A.
Williams, C. P. (Denbigh, Wrexham)


Remer, J. R.
Streatfeild, Captain S. R.
Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)


Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)
Stuart, Crichton-, Lord C.
Windsor Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell
Stuart, Hon. J, (Moray and Nalrn)
Wolmer, Viscount


Ropner, Major L.
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid
Womersley, W. J.


Ruggles-Brlse, Lieut.-Colonel E. A.
Tasker, R. Inlgo
Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley


Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)
Templeton, W. p.
Woodcock, Colonel H. C.


Rye, F. G.
Thom, Lt. -Col. J. G. (Dumbarton)
Wright, Brig.-General W. D.


Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)
Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)



Sandeman, N. Stewart
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Sanders, Sir Robert A.
Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell-
Major Sir George Hennessy and


Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of
Major Sir William Cope.


Savery, S. S.
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement



NOES.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)
Grundy, T. W.
Sexton, James


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Hall, F. (York, W.R., Normanton)
Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)


Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')
Hardle, George D.
Shepherd, Arthur Lewis


Ammon, Charles George
Hayday, Arthur
Shiels, Dr. Drummond


Baker. J. (Wolverhampton, Bilston)
Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Burnley)
Shinwell, E.


Baker, Walter
Henderson, T. (Glasgow)
Slesser, Sir Henry H.


Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)
Hirst, G. H.
Smillie, Robert


Barnes, A.
Hirst, W. (Bradford South)
Snell, Harry


Barr, J.
Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)
Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip


Batey, Joseph
Jenkins. W, (Glamorgan, Neath)
Stamford, T. W.


Bellamy, A.
John, William (Rhondda, West)
Stephen, Campbell


Benn, Wednwood
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)


Bondfield, Margaret
Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)
Sullivan, J.


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Kelly, W. T.
Sutton, J. E.


Broad, F. A.
Kennedy. T.
Taylor, R. A.


Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)
Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M.
Thomas, Rt Hon. James H. (Derby)


Buchanan, G.
Kirkwood, D.
Thurtle, Ernest


Cape, Thomas
Lawrence, Susan
Tinker, John Joseph


Charleton, H. C.
Lawson, John James
Tomlinson, R. P.


Cluse, W. S.
Lee, F.
Townend, A. E.


Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.
Lunn, William
Viant, S. P.


Compton, Joseph
Mackinder, W.
Wallhead, Richard C.


Connolly, M.
Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton)
Walsh. Rt. Hon. Stephen


Cove, W. G.
Maxton, James
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)


Dalton, Hugh
Montaque, Frederick
Wellock, Wilfred


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Welsh, J. C.


Day, Harry
Murnin, H.
Westwood, J.


Dunnico, H.
Naylor, T. E.
Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.


Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
Oliver, George Harold
Whiteley, W.


Gardner, J. P.
Palin, John Henry
Williams, David (Swansea, East)


Gibbins, Joseph
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)
Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)


Gillett, George M.
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.
Williams, T. (York. Don Valley)


Gosling, Harry
Potts, John S.
Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercllffe)


Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Purcell, A. A.
Wilson. R. J. (Jarrow)


Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edln.,Cent.)
Richardson, R. (Heughton-le-Sprine)
Windsor, Walter


Greenall, T.
Riley, Ben
Wright, W.


Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Calne)
Ritson, J.
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O.(W.Bromwich)



Griffith, F. Kingsley
Salter, Dr. Alfred
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Scrymgeour, E.
Mr. B. Smith and Mr. Paling.

CLAUSE 2.—(Sale of West Indian under- taking.)

The CHAIRMAN: The next Amendment not covered by the previous discussion is that in page 4, line 12, in the name of the hon. Member for Finsbury (Mr. Gillett).

Mr. GILLETT: I beg to move, in page 4, line 12, after "1924," to insert the words:
at a price not less than four hundred thousand pounds.
We now come to the second example of the sale of these cables, and the sum which we have put down is £400,000. The Financial Secretary to the Treasury said that he did not know why we had put down a sum in an Amendment to the last Clause. If I had known what was the original expenditure upon this cable I should have followed up the plan we adopted in the last case, and put down that figure instead of the present figure of £400,000, but it is difficult from the
report to make out how much money has actually been spent upon this cable. I understand its earlier life was not very satisfactory, and that at times it was aided by subsidies, and the final position to-day is that there is a debt of about £365,000 unpaid—what we call a debt, but what as a matter of fact might more correctly have been said to be the capital of the company.
I suppose the Financial Secretary will tell me that the figure they propose was arrived at on the same lines as in the previous case, that is that they asked one or two experts to value the cable! There is one point I did not make on the last case, and on which I should be glad to have a reply from the hon. Member. When they asked these experts to value the cables, did they ask for the figure that would have represented their value before any question of the amalgamation of the different cable interests had been brought about, or did they ask for the value taking into account the added value that must inevitably follow after the amalgamation has come into being? I was rather called to account by the hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Wardlaw-Milne) because I said that the quotations on the Stock Exchange were an indication of opinion of which one should take some notice. I do not know what are the qualifications of the hon. Member for Kidderminster to speak about the Stock Exchange, or whether he is a member of it or not, but I gathered from him that the opinion of the Stock Exchange is worthless. I am quite willing to take that view. I have often heard the opinion of the Stock Exchange quoted. When a Labour Government comes in and stocks fall, it is always quoted against the Government, and so I shall be content to take the view of the hon. Member for Kidderminster, and shall feel in future that the opinion of the Stock Exchange against the Labour party is quite worthless.
The point upon which I wish now to lay stress is whether the effect of the amalgamation was taken into consideration by the experts, or whether they took the position as things were before the proposed amalgamation. If they considered the position as it was before the proposed amalgamation, then I wish to know whether the hon. Member, on behalf of the Government, added any
figure in view of the fact that the concern was becoming much more valuable. In his speech on the last occasion—and the hon. Member will notice that I study his speeches with care and attention—the hon. Member seemed inclined to think that this was rather a bankrupt concern, because he spoke of the debt incurred, and said it was evidently far from being a revenue earning proposition. As a matter of fact, the figures are not nearly so bad as the hon. Member wanted to make out. In that speech he was trying to paint everything as black as he could. I think the deficiency in the accounts last year was only £12,000, and £6,000 of that was created by the repayment of capital and another £6,000 had gone to reserves. Now we find that this new company, with all its great resources, is not even being asked to wipe out the whole of the debt. Seeing that they seem to have plenty of money, I do not know why the hon. Member did not suggest that they should clear the whole thing. Why was £64,000 exempted? It could not have made much difference to these people if they had thrown that in, in view of the service that was being rendered to them, and the interest which the hon. Member was taking in what they were doing.
The thing to do now would be for the hon. Member to accept my figure. He will see that it is exceedingly reasonable. We are only suggesting a figure of £400,000. Really, I am rather amazed at how reasonable my proposition is—I should regret it if the hon. Member did accept my Amendment—but he might very well accept it, because then we should have cleared up and finished the thing, and I know the hon. Member would feel the transaction was a more satisfactory one. I very much regret that when we are making this fight against the sale of public property not one of the representatives of the Liberal party, who are so deeply interested in the wellbeing of the nation, is able to be present. I, myself, remember the days when they were the great supporters of municipalisation, and it is amazing to think that we cannot have any, or hardly any, support from that quarter on this occasion. But at any rate that has nothing to do with the hon. Member and myself, and in moving this Amendment I do hope that he will carefully consider
whether it cannot be accepted. Really, though, I should be disappointed, because I am entirely opposed to the sale of this cable, and I cannot think it to be in the best interests of the country.

Mr. A. M. SAMUEL: I will answer together the two questions which the hon. Member has put to me. The cost of the West Indian cable was, as I said, £393,552, since when there has been repaid a sum in annuities amounting to £14,654, leaving outstanding on the 31st March of this year £378,898.

Mr. GILLETT: Do I understand, then, that the total sum ever expended on this cable was about £400,000, apart from any subsidy?

Mr. SAMUEL: I think that is roughly what it was. Then the hon. Member asked me how the cable was valued for this purpose. The probable future prospects were taken into account. In an earlier part of the Debate the hon. Member accused me—I take it in a friendly spirit—of an unusual lapse into careless finance. Let us proceed more cautiously in dealing with this Amendment. The Amendment says that £400,000 ought to be the price for the West Indian cable, instead of the £300,000 recommended. Let us assume that the ruling value of money to-day is 5 per cent., that is, 20 years' purchase. I am going to take the hon. Member along step by step, to show him how cautiously we are proceeding. If £1 of our profits were capitalised on that basis it would be £20; and if the £1 profit grows the capitalisation would be more than £20. Let us take that to its logical conclusion. What is the capitalised value of an annual liability for a loss increasing after a period? It is nil, or worse.
It is a minus profit. Now the hon. Member opposite charges us with wishing to sell this profit too cheaply. I will concede all the points the hon. Member has made about the Reserve Fund. Let me point out that for 1928 the total estimated receipts are £40,000, and the working expenses £32,600, leaving £7,400 as profit on the working, without a penny for reserve or for interest. You will have this year a loss of £24,676, after payment of the annuity. If you capitalise a loss of £24,670 at 5 per cent., do hon. Members
opposite suggest that you will get either £300,000 or £400,000? Really, instead of a capitalised loss, we have a recommendation to sell the West Indian Cable for £300,000, which will bring in £15,000 a year, and yet the hon. Member says we have made a bad bargain because we are not getting £400,000. May I point out that we are not the senior partners in this cable? We do not hold the whole of this property. We own 80/263. The other partners hold 180/263. The proportions are: United Kingdom, 80; Canada, 80; Trinidad and British Guiana, each 30; Barbados, 15; and other West Indian Colonies, 28. Yet the hon. Gentleman opposite is asking us to refuse to sell this cable which lost £15,000 in 1925, £13,000 in 1926, £12,000 in 1927, and is estimated to lose in 1928 £24,676. The hon. Member would have us refuse to sell that loss for £300,000 cash, and would have us override the wishes of our partners who are interested in the property Ns e are selling.

Mr. AMMON: What is the capitalised value given to the undertaking by throwing it into the pool?

Mr. SAMUEL: Those who made the estimate put a value upon it after considering what assistance it would give to the general earning power of the undertaking in the future.

Mr. W. BAKER: I thought the Financial Secretary to the Treasury would have told us a little more about the reasons why this system was instituted. If the hon. Member will turn to the memorandum which was presented when the Financial Resolution relating to the West Indian Telegraphs Bill was introduced, I think he will find that the House was told that there would be a saving of many thousands of pounds then if the money was paid as a subsidy to a private company. Seeing that these subsidies were paid for the benefit of the inhabitants of the Islands and of British Guiana; seeing that subsidies hive been paid in order that communications might be more satisfactory and cheaper, it is not fair to regard these undertakings in the West Indies on a purely commercial basis. I believe that the West Indian system and the other systems we are dealing with, were instituted first by subsidy and then by the direct ownership of the cable and wireless services in order
that our position in the West Indies might become more secure, satisfactory and stable.
This departure from the idea held as recently as 1924 that it was a good thing from the Colonial and Dominion point of view to see that these communications were possible as regards the highest state of efficiency at the lowest possible cost is a reversal of policy. The Imperial Exchequer was prepared to give contributions in the form of subsidies in order that these services might be maintained, and for the Financial Secretary to come here now and discuss this question as a purely commercial proposition is altogether unsatisfactory and misleading to the people who do not know the whole of the facts connected with this transfer. There is a strong case to be made out against the transfer of the West Indian Cable to the Communications Company, and I believe this case is possibly stronger than that of the other concerns, because I have been assured that there are alternatives to the Pacific Cable Board and to the Imperial route across the Atlantic. I hope the Financial Secretary will deal with this aspect of the case.

Mr. OLIVER STANLEY: I have often met the hon. Member for Finsbury (Mr. Gillett) in business circles in the city, and I can safely say that the views he has just expressed in the House are not those which he generally expresses elsewhere. I am sure if it ever falls to the hon. Member's lot to see whether a business is being bought at a proper valuation, he would be the last person to take as the basis the amount of money which during the career of that business had been spent upon it wisely and foolishly. Suppose in one case, £100,000 had been spent on machinery which subsequently had to be scrapped, would the hon. Member take that machinery into account in the valuation upon which the purchase price would be based? The hon. Member for Finsbury knows very well that the basis of the valuation of any business is its present earning power.
If the Financial Secretary's statement about the earning power is correct, then 20 years purchase is the proper price. If the earning power of the business is likely to increase then it is worth more and if it is likely to decrease, it would be worth less. If the earning power in this case is £7,500 then 20 years pur-
chase would be 150,000, and on the top of that there is another £150 which represents the added value the merger is likely to give to this undertaking. On this side of the House we sincerely hope that when the time comes for the hon. Member for Finsbury to receive that promotion in his party rank which he so well deserves the place chosen for him will be at the Treasury; for if when at the Treasury he consummates the ideas of purchase valuation he has shown today, he will find among the property owners of this country many rapid converts to the principles of Socialism with compensation.

Mr. SHINWELL: I thought the hon. Member for Westmorland (Mr. O. Stanley) was going to strengthen the case presented by the Financial Secretary, but, instead of doing that, he has made it worse. The hon. Member argued that these transactions should be based on the earning power of the existing machinery, but the Financial Secretary pointed out that the factor of the future prospects ought to be taken into consideration. That is a factor that does enter into transactions of this kind. The potentialities of a busniess are always taken into consideration in such transactions, and I cannot understand why the hon. Member should have intervened in the manner he has done.

Mr. O. STANLEY: May I explain? The reason why the hon. Member does not understand it is because he did not listen to my speech. I said that 20 years purchase was a fair purchase for a stabilised industry yielding £150,000, and that in this case the extra £150,000 represents the likely increase.

Mr. SHINWELL: You are not dealing here with an isolated transaction, and the whole assumption upon which the Financial Secretary went was that this was an isolated transaction. It is nothing of the sort, and no one need pretend that it is. It is a transaction irretrievably bound up with a much wider issue, and it is that issue which must be kept steadily in our minds when considering this sale. As I understood the Financial Secretary, he was arguing that £300,000 was better than having £400,000, which was worse. Putting it in another way, the hon. Gentleman said that it was better to have £300,000, and then he proceeded to argue
that this would mean a certain amount of interest in future years, all of which would accrue to the Treasury, and therefore it was a decided advantage, but that if we were to demand £400,000 we would be in a much worse state. For the life of me I cannot understand it. Surely £400,000 is better than £300,000, unless the argument be that if we demanded £400,000 there would be no transaction. If that is the point, then it is for the Financial Secretary to adduce evidence in support of it. No such evidence has been forthcoming. I put it to him quite categorically, and perhaps he will be good enough to give me a reply. Does he suggest to the Committee that if we insisted on a purchase payment of £400,000 then the transaction would come to an end, and the scheme would not be proceeded with? Is that his contention? I think we are entitled to know.
I do not propose to argue at this stage the wider issues involved in this transaction, and I content myself with asking for further information. I submit that the Financial Secretary cannot prove to the Committee that the proposal would be rendered abortive as a result of a specific demand for a legitimately higher payment. The Financial Secretary has not argued against the justice of such a demand. Then he should withdraw his own schemes and accept the Amendment. There can be no doubt that the Financial Secretary is simply juggling with this question. He had manipulated the figures, not with any great success, and even fortified by the rhetoric of the hon. Member behind him, that manipulation is insufficient to justify us in accepting the proposal.

Mr. MALONE: There is one point I want to put to the Financial Secretary. He justified the amount by saying it had been arrived at by taking into consideration all the facts of the case—the beam wireless and revenue to be obtained from various subsidiary services. I assume that that means taking into consideration messages charged for on these cables from countries other than those which are the termini of these cables, that is to say, countries at no greater distance than Europe. What is going to happen and what is the Government's policy with regard to the European services? These,
obviously, must have been part of the consideration taken into account. You have to-day competing services between the Post Office and the Marconi Company. The Company will go into the merger of the Communications Company. The Post Office controls 84 cables to the Continent of Europe and also runs wireless services. I am not dealing with that now, but with certain of the European countries. The Marconi Company runs other wireless services. Obviously, when you are putting one half of these two competing forces into a great international merger company you are going to cut down the Post Office profits and make their competition in future—

The CHAIRMAN: How can the hon. Member connect this with the proper price to be paid for the West India Cables?

Mr. MALONE: I assume that when you are fixing a price to be paid for a cable which is going to be part of a great international concern, you must take into consideration what is going to be the state of affairs in Europe. I want to know the policy as regards Post Office control of telegraphs and wireless with Europe. There are two competing systems, the Marconi Company and the Post Office, and is that going to continue?

The CHAIRMAN: How does that affect messages to the West Indies?

Mr. MALONE: Because many of the messages to the West Indies come from Europe, and they are passed on to these lines from Great Britain to the West Indies. The West Indies are in constant touch with many countries in Europe and we have a right to know what the policy is going to be. The Government decided that the policy of British wireless was the policy of the All-lied Route, and we decided as a sop to the Marconi Company that they should have the traffic in Europe. We have abandoned the All-Red Route policy and sold part of that route already to the Marconi Company. They have the station at Abu Zabal entirely. Is it not right that the Post Office should take back all communications with Europe? I ask the Government to take that into consideration. The Financial Secretary to the Treasury has been attacked by his own
party for repetition during this Debate. That is absolutely unfounded. I have been in the House ever since 4 o'clock—

The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member must realise that this is an entirely new Debate, and that we are not continuing the former one.

Mr. MALONE: Before you took the Chair, Mr. Hope, the Financial Secretary was unjustly attacked, and I wanted to express my appreciation of his courtesy in answering the questions which we put to him.

Mr. HARDIE: The Secretary of State for Scotland is the salesman in this matter, and I should have thought from his experience of the last two months, and from the fact that we are dealing with a Bill which is making a sale of various individual things, that we might have had a formula. Things might have been simplified if, instead of our having to try to find out what was principal, what was capital and what was not, we had had a formula with a load factor weighted for capital and a datum line which would have enabled us to understand the calculation. It was the statement made by the Financial Secretary that brought me to my feet. He was speaking about values and how we were to arrive at values; and another hon. Gentleman behind him also talked about values; but it is in relation to his statement about future prospects that I want to speak. He said that he was dealing with all future prospects. If the beam service had been held by a private company instead of by the Government, and if it had been competing with these private companies, what would be the future values, in view of the fact that you are transmitting 400 words as against 45? Is that an element of future value? To give an instance of the ordinary methods of competition when a multiple shop is set up by the side of a private trader, that competition sends him to the wall, but in these sales there is the element of prevention, because it happens to be the big men who are in it, and they are not to be subjected to the ordinary competition on the basis of value.
If we desire honestly to value a business, how do we begin? We begin
by taking what is there, and valuing that. The next point is whether that machinery, or whatever it is, is up-to-date, and when you have taken that into account you can assess its value. Then we take the capacity for production, and measure it with the up-to-date production in the same business. That is the method of valuing. 1f this valuation were conducted on that, basis, the figures would be different. I should like the Financial Secretary to explain just what he meant by "all future prospects." Was his mind running on the future prospects of the beam wireless, or on the continually depreciating asset of the cables in competition with the beam wireless? The next question is this: Supposing that our part of this sum of money which is being paid For this cable were wiped out, how long would it take for the profits that have been or can be made on the beam service in the hands of the nation—

The CHAIRMAN: These matters can have nothing to do with the profits or otherwise made by the West Indian Cable.

Mr. HARDIE: Supposing that we were able to say that the beam wireless was making good profits and we could do without the West Indian Cable, how long would it take to make up the amount that it is supposed would be lost? I know that tile Financial Secretary is very good at figures, and that he does not want a mathematical formula to answer a simple question like this. What would be the number of years, or months or weeks, taking the earnings as shown by the beam as against the cables, the one sending 42 words and the other 400—what would be the ratio of increase in business, and what number of years would be required in order to make up the money that we are supposed to be losing now?

Mr. BENN: I want to press this point a little further. The Financial Secretary opened the argument with the usual formula setting forth that we are not the masters in this matter, that we have all our partners to consult. In this case it is perfectly true that Trinidad, British Guiana and other places are partners, but they were all represented at the Conference by Sir Samuel Wilson, who is a permanent official of the Government, and it is ridiculous to say that, if the British Government wish to do a certain
thing, they are only a partner and cannot have their own way. I do not think it is very wise or effective to say, "Canada wants this, and we had better not sell it," instead of defending it on its merits. As my hon. Friend has said, you have naturally to consider the future profits of the beam wireless. What is the value that is set on these profits by the Financial Secretary? I understand that he wishes to answer, but that the Secretary of State for Scotland will not let him. Of course, we have had a tremendous addition to the Debate to-night in the person of the hon. Member for Westmorland (Mr. O. Stanley). If he will tell us what they are saying in the City, we shall be very glad. He knows all about the Communications Company, and who are going to be the directors. He knows what value is set upon it in the City, but the City has not told them. Therefore, it would be a tremendous advantage if he would, in his charming manner, make a fuller contribution to the Debate. So far as the question of my hon. Friend the Member for Springburn (Mr. Hardie) is concerned, it is not necessary to ask the Financial Secretary, because, while the Postmaster-General was absent from the Debate, a certain piece of information was given to the House, either by the Assistant Postmaster-General or by one of the other Ministers, and now we find for the first time that the Postmaster-General gave evidence before this Conference. We had not known that, for his name is not mentioned in the Report, but when we asked the question we were given to understand that the Assistant Postmaster-General supplied what information was required, which I suppose meant papers and things of that kind; but we now understand that the Postmaster-General was present as a Privy Councillor. For some reason, however—perhaps because he was a Privy Councillor—it was not considered necessary to include his name in the list of witnesses. We now ask, and we must press for a reply, what was the value that the Postmaster-General set on the future of the beam service?

The CHAIRMAN: I do not see how the hon. Member can go into that, either on the question of the West Indian cable or of the £400,000.

Mr. BENN: We are, of course, in a great difficulty, but the fact of the matter is that the price that we receive for every one of these cables is governed directly by the improving value of the beam service. It is perfectly true that the beam service is only mentioned in the Preamble to the Bill, but it has a material effect in deciding the value of all these things. Therefore, I would ask the Postmaster-General, since we have only discovered, at nine o'clock at night, that he ever appeared in this Conference at all, what was his advice about the value of the beam wireless? I am well aware that, as a member of the Cabinet, he accepts the decision, and that is, of course, quite right, but I am not speaking to him as a member of the Cabinet, preserving the solidarity of the Government, but as a technical witness who was present in the Conference, and I am asking him what value he sets upon the future of the beam wireless, and what he considers to be the usefulness of these particular cables. I think that that is a perfectly fair question to put to him, and I trust that he will give us some reply.

Mr. TINKER: I gathered from the Financial Secretary that in his opinion we had made a very good bargain, and that was backed up by the hon. Member for Westmorland (Mr. O. Stanley). Surely they must know that the people they were bargaining with could also realise the bargain. I do not think we have made a very good bargain if all the relevant facts are taken into consideration. I am not quite satisfied with the Amendment. I am dead against the principle of selling out State property, and even if you got £400,000 I should strenuously object to any transaction taking place. I do not know why the Amendment has been put down. It may he only to give information, but if it is with a view to getting a higher price, I, for one, would not agree.

Mr. W. BAKER: I am quite accustomed to asking questions and failing to secure a reply, but I would respectfully ask the Financial Secretary whether it is not reasonable to ask him to tell us the facts with regard to the subsidy that was paid in relation to the West Indian communications before this particular method was adopted. I do not see why an answer should not be given. It is
necessary for the information to be given if the Committee is to be in possession of the whole of the facts. I entirely agree with the hon. Member for North Aberdeen (Mr. Benn) in his request that the Postmaster-General should make a statement. It is too much to expect that he will resign his place in the Government in order to make clear to the world exactly where he stands on the matter, but I am certain that, if he would stand in the House and take the line that he and his Department have taken on the question, he would earn a very much higher position in history than he can possibly secure by making a very bad bargain of this description. I hope we shall have a statement From the Financial Secretary on the question of the subsidy.

Mr. SHINWELL: I am anxious not to cast my vote in the wrong Lobby, and so that I may make up my mind I want to press this question. Can the Financial Secretary tell us what he had in mind when he spoke of all future prospects? Everything depends upon that. Had he in view the linking up of the beam wireless with the cable system, and so on? If he can furnish information on that point we shall know exactly where we stand. I observe that the great three are now in earnest consultation and, presumably, from their sotto voce deliberations, there will emerge something from which we can come to a rational conclusion. The Postmaster-General left his seat for a moment, presumably to obtain some information. Cannot we have the benefit of that information now? May we not know what item of information he was seeking, and what are the conclusions? Surely we are entitled to know exactly what is in the mind of the three right hon. Gentlemen on the Treasury Bench.
You, Sir, indicated that certain observations on this side with respect to the wider issue appeared to be slightly out of order. But the Financial Secretary himself, in referring to all future prospects, must also have been out of order, and if he was not called down, really he ought to explain what he meant by that observation. Will he, in such language as he can use, with the figures at his disposal and with a command of finance such as we all know he possesses, give us what in the circumstances I think
we are entitled to. I do not know whether he now proposes to respond to that appeal. Apparently he does. I am certain if it were not for the Secretary for Scotland there would be no difficulty at all in eliciting this information. I should have imagined, after the right hon. Gentleman's misdeeds in the last three days, he would have been content without interfering at this time.

The CHAIRMAN: Do I understand that the Secretary of State for Scotland has been doing something wrong in connection with this Bill?

Mr. SHINWELL: I must not be tempted by such a consideration. It is a far cry from Scottish local government to the West Indies. As for the right hon. Gentleman's misdeeds there is not sufficient time between now and eleven o'clock to speak of them, therefore I forbear. One can understand gentlemen from the city being anxious to arrive at a useful commercial transaction. This is one. Here they are selling something which has very great prospects, according to the hon. Gentleman, for £300,000 It is clearly not sufficient. [An HON. MEMBER: "So you said a long time ago."] Yes, and it requires to be said more often. The fact that the hon. Member does not say it does not indicate surprising intelligence on his part. It merely reveals that he knows nothing about the subject. [An HON. MEMBER: "Like you!"] I agree. It is precisely because I am not acquainted with all the facts that I am asking the Financial Secretary to give me the information; I press upon him to give us a reasonable answer.

Mr. THURTLE: I want to express my disappointment that the Financial Secretary has not seen fit to respond to the many appeals from this side to reply to the point that has been made, and I want to put this further point to him. The point at issue with us is whether or not the potential earnings of this cable are such as to warrant a higher price than £300,000. We would not press the point if we were satisfied, for instance, that in no case arc the earnings likely to exceed something like £30,000 a year. That would provide for replacement, renewals and a fairly adequate return on the capital invested. I should like to ask whether the purchasing companies have
given any proof that they regarded this as a fair and equitable price for State property. Did they ever suggest, in the course of the negotiations, that, if the earnings exceeded a certain figure, after they had received 6, 7 or 8 per cent. return upon their capital, after they had made provision for renewals and replacements, any sum over and above that should go into the coffers of the State? If they made a proposal like that, we should have some proof that they did not regard this sum as excessive. The present earning capacity of the cable is no indication whatever of what its potential earnings may be.
Let me give an illustration. In South Wales there are numbers of colliery companies which have gone into liquidation because week by week they have been losing £100 or £200. One would think that mines of that kind which have to go into liquidation and stop working because of considerable losses would not have any capital value at all. Yet the fact of the matter is that the liquidator is able to dispose of these collieries, which have been steadily losing money week after week, for £20,000, £30,000, and £50,000 because of the potential earning capacity of those collieries. We have this West Indian Cable admittedly already earning £10,000 a year. If it has been able to earn £10,000 a year there is no telling what it, may earn in the future. I think that we have a case for asking the Financial Secretary to give us more information, to be more candid with the Committee, to give more information as to what the potential earnings of this West Indian Cable are likely to be.

10.0 p.m.

Mr. W. BAKER: I am sorry to press myself on the attention of the Committee again, but I do regard it as being more than amazing that the Financial Secretary should persist in refusing to

give the Committee the information for which I ask. It has been made perfectly clear to-day that the Government in the present Bill are reversing the very sound decision which was come to by their predecessors with regard to the beam. The same thing is true with regard to the West Indian Cable, and if the Financial Secretary does not know the facts I will tell them to him. In February, 1924, the Treasury came to the House of Commons with the Financial Resolution on which they produced a Memorandum, and they said that this Resolution was proposed in order to enable a Bill to be introduced providing that a sum not exceeding £40,000 might be isued from the Consolidated Fund for the construction of a new submarine cable. They told the House of Commons—and this is what I regard as so important—that if they would agree to this expenditure they would save an annual sum of £8,000 which was being paid as a subsidy to the West Indian and Panama Telegraph Company; that on the passage of that Financial Resolution and the consequent legislation the State would save £8,000 a year as against an expenditure being incurred of £40,000. If anyone cares to do the mental arithmetic he will find that instead of this being a very serious financial loss to the State—as our friends might lead us to believe—in actual fact the State by saving that subsidy of £8,000 over the intervening years is not far from being absolutely level as far as finance is concerned. What I am complaining of is that the whole truth is not being given to the Committee in regard to this matter, and I have to protest once more at the refusal to answer questions on really substantial inquiries.

Question put, "That those words be there inserted,"

The Committee divided: Ayes, 125; Noes, 194.

Division No. 30.]
AYES.
[10.0 p.m.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)
Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)


Adamson, W. M. (Staff, Cannock)
Briant, Frank
Day, Harry


Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')
Broad, F. A.
Duncan, C.


Ammon, Charles George
Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)
Dunnico, H.


Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bilston)
Buchanan, G.
Gardner, J, P.


Baker, Walter
Cape, Thomas
Garro-Jones, Captain G. M.


Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)
Charleton, H. C.
Gibbins, Joseph


Barnes, A.
Cluse, W. S.
Gillett, George M.


Barr, J.
Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.
Gosling, Harry


Batey, Joseph
Compton, Joseph
Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)


Bellamy, A.
Connolly, M.
Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.)


Benn, Wedgwood
Cove, W. G.
Greenall, T.


Bondfield, Margaret
Dalton, Hugh
Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)


Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Naylor, T. E.
Taylor, R. A.


Griffith, F. Kingsley
Oliver, George Harold
Thomas, Rt. Hon. James H. (Derby)


Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Palin, John Henry
Thurtle, Ernest


Grundy, T. W.
Paling, W.
Tinker, John Joseph


Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)
Tomlinson, R. P.


Hardie, George D.
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.
Townend, A. E.


Hayday, Arthur
Potts, John S.
Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles


Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burnley)
Purcell, A. A.
Viant, S. P.


Hirst, G. H.
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Walsh, Rt. Hon. Stephen


Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)
Riley, Bea
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)


Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)
Ritson, J.
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)


Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)
Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O. (W. Bromwich)
Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah


John, William (Rhondda, West)
Salter, Dr. Alfred
Wellock, Wilfred


Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Scrymgeour, E.
Welsh, J. C.


Jones, T. I. Mardy (pontypridd)
Scurr, John
Westwood, J.


Kelly, W. T.
Sexton, James
Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.


Kennedy, T.
Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)
Whiteley, W.


Kirkwood, D.
Shepherd, Arthur Lewis
Wilkinson, Ellen C.


Lawrence, Susan
Shiels, Dr. Drummond
Williams, David (Swansea, East)


Lawson, John James
Shinwell, E.
Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)


Lee, F.
Slesser, Sir Henry H.
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Lunn, William
Smillie, Robert
Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)


MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Aberavon)
Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Mackinder, W.
Snell, Harry
Windsor, Walter


Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton)
Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip
Wright, W.


March, S.
Stamford, T. W.
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Maxton, James
Stephen, Campbell



Montague, Frederick
Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Sullivan, J.
Mr. Charles Edwards and Mr. T.


Murnin, H.
Sutton, J. E.
Henderson.


NOES.


Albery, Irving James
Drewe, C.
Knox, Sir Alfred


Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)
Edge, Sir William
Lamb, J. Q.


Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.
Edmondson, Major A. J.
Little, Dr. E. Graham


Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.
Ellis, R. G.
Livingstone, A. M.


Astor, Maj. Hn. John J. (Kent, Dover)
Erskine, James Malcolm Monteith
Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley)


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.)
Loder, J. da V.


Balniel, Lord
Everard, W. Lindsay
Long, Major Eric


Banks, Sir Reginald Mitchell
Falls, Sir Bertram G.
Looker, Herbert William


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Fenby, T. D.
Luce, Maj.-Gen. Sir Richard Harman


Bellairs, Commander Carlyon
Fermoy, Lord
MacAndrew Major Charles Glen


Berry, Sir George
Ford, Sir P. J.
Macdonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)


Birchall, Major J. Dearman
Forrest, W.
Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)


Bird, E. R. (Yorks, W. R., Skipton)
Foster, Sir Harry S.
MacIntyre, Ian


Boothby, R. J. G.
Foxcroft, Captain C. T.
McLean, Major A.


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Fremantle, Lt.-Col. Francis E.
Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel-


Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart
Gadie, Lieut.-Col. Anthony
Makins, Brigadier-General E.


Bowyer, Captain G. E. W.
Galbraith, J. F. W.
Margesson, Captain D.


Brass, Captain W.
Ganzoni, Sir John
Marriott, Sir J. A. R.


Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive
Gates, Percy
Mason, Colonel Glyn K.


Briscoe, Richard George
Gault, Lieut.-Col. Andrew Hamilton
Milne, J. S. Wardlaw-


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)


Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.
Glyn, Major R. G. C.
Mitchell, W. Foot (Saffron Walden)


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks, Newb'y)
Gower, Sir Robert
Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.


Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Grace, John
Moore, Sir Newton J.


Bullock, Captain M.
Grant, Sir J. A.
Moreing, Captain A. H.


Burman, J. B.
Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.
Nail, Colonel Sir Joseph


Cassels, J. D.
Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)
Nelson, Sir Frank


Cautley, Sir Henry S.
Grotrian, H. Brent
Neville, Sir Reginald J.


Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)
Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)


Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth, S.)
Hacking, Douglas H.
Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)


Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)
Hall, Capt. W. D'A. (Brecon & Rad.)
Nicholson, O. (Westminster)


Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)
Hammersley, S. S.
Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William


Charteris, Brigadier-General J.
Harland, A.
Owen, Major G.


Christie, J. A.
Hartington, Marquess of
Penny, Frederick George


Churchman, Sir Arthur C.
Haslam, Henry C.
Perkins, Colonel E. K.


Clayton, G. C.
Henderson, Capt. R.R. (Oxf'd, Henley)
Power, Sir John Cecil


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.
Preston, Sir Walter (Cheltenham)


Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.
Henn, Sir Sydney H.
Price, Major C. W. M.


Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips
Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.
Raine, Sir Walter


Colman, N. C. D.
Hills, Major John Waller
Rees, Sir Beddoe


Cooper, A. Duff
Hilton, Cecil
Reid, D. D. (County Down)


Cope, Major Sir William
Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.
Remer, J. R.


Couper, J. B.
Hope, Capt. A. O. J. (Warw'k, Nun.)
Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)


Cowan, Sir Wm. Henry (Islington, N.)
Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar)
Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell


Craig, Sir Ernest (Chester, Crewe)
Howard-Bury, Colonel C. K.
Ropner, Major L.


Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend)
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Ruggles-Brise, Lieut.-Colonel E. A.


Culverwell, C. T. (Bristol, West)
Hume, Sir G. H.
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)


Curzon, Captain Viscount
Iliffe, Sir Edward M.
Rye, F. G.


Davies, Dr. Vernon
Jones, Sir G. W. H. (Stoke New'gton)
Salmon, Major I.


Dawson, Sir Philip
Kennedy, A. R. (Preston)
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)


Dean, Arthur Welleslay
King, Commodore Henry Douglas
Sandeman, N. Stewart




Sanders, Sir Robert A.
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)
White, Lieut.-Col. sir G. Dalrymple-


Savery, S. S.
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser
Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)


Shaw, Lt.-Col A. D. Mcl. (Renfrew, W)
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid
Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)


Sheffield, Sir Berkeley
Tasker, R. Inigo
Williams, C. P. (Denbigh, Wrexham)


Skelton, A. N.
Templeton, W. P.
Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)


Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)
Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Smithers, Waldron
Thomson, F. c. (Aberdeen, South)
Wolmer, Viscount


Spender-Clay, Colonel H.
Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell-
Womersley, W. J.


Stanley, Lord (Fylde)
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement
Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley


Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westm'eland)
Wallace, Captain D. E.
Woodcock, Colonel H. C.


Steel, Major Samuel Strang
Waterhouse, Captain Charles
Wright, Brig.-General W. D.


Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.
Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)



Strauss, E. A.
Watts, Sir Thomas
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Streatfelld, Captain S. R.
Wayland, Sir William A.
Major The Marquess of Titchfield.


Stuart, Crichton-, Lord C.
Wells, S. R.
and Sir Victor Warrender.

Mr. W. BAKER: I beg to move, in page 4, line 13, to leave out the word "undertaking," and to insert instead thereof the word "cables."
In listening very carefully to the discussion I have heard nothing which would lead me to believe that anything is being transferred beyond the cables in the area of the West Indian Islands. On turning to the Report, on page l7, recommendation 3, "Terms of transfer of the Government's Cable and Beam Assets," we find no suggestion of transfer from Government ownership of anything more than the West Indian cables. I do not think I shall be misrepresenting the right hon. Gentleman if I say that the Postmaster-General in his speech to-day specially referred to cables. If I understood him right, it is neither the policy of the Imperial Conference nor is it the policy of His Majesty's Government to sell beam wireless or any other form of wireless to the Communications Company.
In these circumstances, perhaps the Committee will forgive me if I draw attention to the extent to which wireless is being used in the West Indies. There are wireless stations at Barbados, St. Kitts, Antigua, Dominica, St. Lucia, St. Vincent and Grenada. I would ask the Postmaster-General to explain exactly why it is that, without special reference being made to the point, the Government are proposing to lease the Beam service, while in the case of the wireless service in the West Indies, which is of first-class importance to the people of the islands, it is proposed to sell these undertakings and get rid of them once for all. I find it difficult to reconcile these conflicting policies, and I trust the Postmaster-General will make the point clear.

Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: The Amendment in the form suggested by the hon. Member would make complete
nonsense of the proposal in the Bill. The effect of the Amendment, if it were carried in the form he suggests, would be that the only thing that could be transferred would be the actual physical cables, leaving out, for instance, such things as the terminal stations, which are necessary to work the stations. I recognise that in moving the Amendment the hon. Member desires some information as to the position. I happen to know the West Indies, having lived there, and I remember the days when I used to be extremely interested in this question. The cables run between Tinks Island and Barbados, between Barbados and Trinidad and between Barbados and Georgetown in British Guiana. In between the inter-island services are linked up by a system of small wireless service, not beam wireless service, but ordinary small point-to-point wireless service. These services, in themselves, although of great value and great utility, are of no capital value. They are only of value as feeders of the main system of communication carried by the cables. They are an integral and inseparable part of the cable undertaking, and when you are transferring the cable undertaking you have to transfer the cable services as a whole, together with the wireless service. As the wireless service is an integral and inseparable part of the service there, you cannot transfer the cable service and keep the wireless service.

Amendment negatived.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

Mr. BENN: All these Clauses have the same common purpose, that is that they offer for disposal different parts of Government property, and it is as well at the end of one Clause to get some idea as to exactly where we stand in regard
to the general transaction. For the information of hon. Members who have not been able to be present all the evening let me tell them exactly what information is really missing. The first thing we know is that there is no such thing as the Communications Company in existence. Nobody knows what it is; and the Government does not even know its personnel. The second thing we know is that a contract is not in existence, and that even if it were it would not be laid before the House of Commons for approval. The third thing we know, and which we never knew before, is that the Postmaster-General gave evidence before the Committee of which the Secretary of State for Scotland was Chairman, and we cannot have any information as to the nature of his evidence. The reason, of course, is perfectly obvious. As a member of the Cabinet the Postmaster-General loyally accepts the decision of the Cabinet. [HON. MEMBERS: "He is not in the Cabinet!"] As a member of the Government he naturally accepts the decision of the Government, but he is in another capacity. He is the trustee of public property in the Post Office and the technical adviser to this House on these matters. It was in the first capacity that he appeared to give evidence before the Committee and it is not unreasonable to ask that we should know what that evidence was.
The Noble Lord who witnesses with great approval all these transactions supplied the information, or revealed the fact, that it was the Postmaster-General who actually gave evidence. Is it unreasonable or essentially improper politically, and from a party point of view, to ask that the House of Commons should be informed of the nature of the evidence given by the Postmaster-General in regard to these matters? The essence of all these contracts is not the price you are getting for an obsolete cable company, but the prospective value of your beam services, and upon that nobody is so well qualified to speak as the head of the branch which controls the present beam services. That is as far as we have got, and it proves that the

efforts of some hon. Members in this House have not been wasted during the Debate. If they have not elicited any information, they have at least drawn attention to a good deal of dangerous concealment on the part of members of the Government.

Mr. W. BAKER: With regard to what the Postmaster-General has said in reference to the wireless stations in the West Indies, if it is true that they are of no great capital value, that would seem to me to be the most excellent reason why they should be repaid and not transferred. In the absence of specific information it is difficult to specify the amount of revenue derived from these wireless stations, but it seems to me to be fairly clear that if the capital is small, then the revenue must be almost pure gain to the person or community owning these stations. I am sorry the Government have broken what I understood to be their policy; that wireless stations were not to be transferred, and I could wish that even now they would change their minds. If that is impossible we may just as well get on to some of the matters on which it may be hoped it is still possible to convert hon. Members opposite to our point of view. Our opposition is quite reasonable. I hardly like to be so bold but I feel that my position is in some way only a reflection of the position of the Postmaster-General himself. He does not seem to be prepared to stand firmly for the position which I have tried to uphold, but he is not prepared to deny that it is the position; and I must leave it to the Committee to decide whether I am right or not in thinking that this decision has been taken in defiance not only of the Postmaster-General and his experts but in defiance of all the evidence. It is hopeless in the present circumstances to hope for a favourable verdict on this Clause, but I have no doubt as to what the ultimate verdict will be.

Question put, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 195; Noes, 126.

Division No. 31.]
AYES.
[10.20 p.m.


Albery, Irving James
Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.
Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley


Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)
Astor, Maj. Hn. John J. (Kent, Dover)
Balniel, Lord


Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.
Atholl, Duchess of
Banks, Sir Reginald Mitchell


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William


Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.
Glyn, Major R. G. C.
Owen, Major G.


Bellairs, Commander Carlyon
Gower, Sir Robert
Perkins, Colonel E. K.


Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)
Grace, John
Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)


Birchall, Major J. Dearman
Grant, Sir J. A.
Power, Sir John Cecil


Boothby, R. J. G.
Greaves-Lord, Sir Walter
Preston, Sir Walter (Cheltenham)


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)
Price, Major C. W. M.


Bowyer, Captain G. E. W.
Grotrian, H. Brent
Raine, Sir Walter


Brass, Captain W.
Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.
Rees, Sir Beddoe


Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive
Hacking, Douglas H.
Reid, D. D. (County Down)


Briscoe, Richard George
Hall, Capt. W. D'A. (Brecon & Rad.)
Remer, J. R.


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Hammersley, S. S.
Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)


Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.
Harland, A.
Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks, Nawb'y)
Hartington, Marquess of
Ropner, Major L.


Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Haslam, Henry C.
Ruggles-Brise, Lieut.-Colonel E. A.


Bullock, Captain M.
Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley)
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)


Burman, J. B.
Heneage, Lieut.-Col. Arthur P.
Rye, F. G.


Cassels, J. D.
Henn, Sir Sydney H.
Salmon, Major I.


Cautley, Sir Henry S.
Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)


Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)
Hills, Major John Waller
Sandeman, N. Stewart


Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth, C.)
Hilton, Cecil
Sanders, Sir Robert A.


Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)
Hope, Capt. A. O. J. (Warw'k, Nun.)
Savory, S. S.


Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)
Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar)
Sheffield, Sir Berkeley


Charteris, Brigadier-General J.
Howard-Bury, Colonel C. K.
Skelton, A. N.


Christie, J. A.
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)


Churchman, Sir Arthur C.
Hume, Sir G. H.
Smithers, Waldron


Clayton, G. C.
Iliffe, Sir Edward M.
Stanley, Lord (Fylde)


Cobb, Sir Cyril
James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert
Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westm'eland)


Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.
Jones, Sir G. W.H. (Stoke New'gton)
Steel, Major Samuel Strang


Colfox, Major William Phillips
Kennedy, A. R. (Preston)
Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.


Colman, N. C. D.
Kindersley, Major G. M.
Strauss, E. A.


Cooper, A. Duff
King, Commodore Henry Douglas
Streatfelld, Captain S. R.


Cope, Major Sir William
Knox, Sir Alfred
Stuart, Crichton-, Lord C.


Couper, J. B.
Lamb, J. Q.
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Cowan, Sir Wm. Henry (Islingtn., N.)
Lister, Cunliffe, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser


Craig, Sir Ernest (Chester, Crewe)
Little, Dr. E. Graham
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid


Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend)
Livingstone, A. M.
Tasker, R. Inigo.


Crookshank, Cpt. H. (Lindsey, Gainsbro)
Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley)
Templeton, W. P.


Culverwell, C. T. (Bristol, West)
Loder, J. de V.
Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)


Curzon, Captain Viscount
Long, Major Eric
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)


Davies, Dr. Vernon
Looker, Herbert William
Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell-


Dawson, Sir Philip
Luce, Major-Gen. Sir Richard Harman
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of


Dean, Arthur Wellesley
MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen
Tomlinson, R. P.


Drewe, C.
Macdonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Edge, Sir William
Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)
warrender, sir Victor


Edmondson, Major A. J.
MacIntyre, Ian
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


Ellis, R. G.
McLean, Major A.
Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)


Erskine, James Malcolm Monteith
Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Malcolm
Watts, Sir Thomas


Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.)
Maitland, Sir Arthur D. steel-
Wayland, Sir William A.


Everard, W. Lindsay
Makins, Brigadier-General E.
Wells, S. R.


Falle, Sir Bertram G.
Margesson, Captain D.
White, Lieut.-Col. Sir G. Dalrymple-


Fenby, T. D.
Marriott, Sir J. A. R.
Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)


Fermoy, Lord
Mason, Colonel Glyn K.
Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)


Ford, Sir P. J.
Merriman, Sir F. Boyd
Williams, C. P. (Denbigh, Wrexham)


Forrest, W.
Mitchell, W. Foot (Saffron Walden)
Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)


Foster, Sir Harry S.
Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Foxcroft, Captain C. T.
Moore, Sir Newton J.
Wolmer, Viscount


Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Moreing, Captain A. H.
Womersley, W. J


Gadle, Lieut.-Col. Anthony
Nail, Colonel Sir Joseph
Woodcock, Colonel H. C.


Galbraith, J. F. W.
Nelson, Sir Frank
Wright, Brig.-General W. D.


Ganzoni, Sir John
Neville, Sir Reginald J.



Gates, Percy
Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Gault, Lieut.-Col. Andrew Hamilton
Nicholson, O. (Westminster)
Mr. Penny and Captain Wallace.


NOES.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)
Buxton, Rt. Hon. Noel
Graham, D M (Lanark, Hamilton)


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Cape, Thomas
Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.)


Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')
Charleton, H. C.
Greenall, T.


Ammon, Charles George
Cluse, W. S.
Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)


Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bilston)
Compton, Joseph
Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)


Baker, Walter
Connolly, M.
Griffith, F. Kingsley


Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abtrtillery)
Cove, W. G.
Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)


Barnes, A.
Dalton, Hugh
Grundy, T. W.


Barr, J.
Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale)
Hall, F. (York, W.R., Normanton)


Batey, Joseph
Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Hardie, George D.


Bellamy, A.
Day, Harry
Hayday, Arthur


Benn, Wedgwood
Duncan, C.
Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burnley)


Bondfield, Margaret
Dunnico, H.
Henderson, T. (Glasgow)


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Gardner, J. P.
Hirst, G. H.


Briant, Frank
Garro-Jones, Captain G. M.
Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)


Broad, F. A.
Gibbins, Joseph
Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)


Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)
Gillett, George M.
Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)


Buchanan, G.
Gosling, Harry
John, William (Rhondda, West)




Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Thurtle, Ernest


Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)
Riley, Ben
Tinker, John Joseph


Kelly, W. T.
Ritson, J.
Townend, A. E.


Kennedy, T.
Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O. (W. Bromwich)
Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles


Kirkwood, D.
Salter, Dr. Alfred
Viant, S. P.


Lawrence, Susan
Scrymgeour, E.
Walsh, Rt. Hon. Stephen


Lawson, John James
Scurr, John
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)


Lee, F.
Sexton, James
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)


Longbottom, A. W.
Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)
Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Joslah


Lunn, William
Shepherd, Arthur Lewis
Wellock, Wilfred


MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Aberavon)
Shiels, Dr. Drummond
Welsh, J. C.


Mackinder, W.
Shinwell, E.
westwood, J.


Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton)
Slesser, Sir Henry H.
Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.


March, S.
Smillie, Robert
Whiteley, W.


Maxton, James
Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)
Wilkinson, Ellen C.


Montague, Frederick
Smith, Rennie (Penistone)
Williams, David (Swansea, East)


Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Snell, Harry
Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)


Murnin, H.
Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Naylor, T. E.
Stamford, T. W.
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Oliver, George Harold
Stephen, Campbell
Windsor, Walter


Palin, John Henry
Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)
Wright, W.


Paling, W.
Sullivan, J.
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.
Sutton, J. K.



Ponsonby, Arthur
Taylor, R. A.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Potts, John S.
Thomas, Rt. Hon. James H. (Derby)
Mr. Allen Parkinson and Mr.Charles Edwards.

CLAUSE 3.—(Dissolution of Pacific Cable Board.)

Mr. W. BAKER: I beg to move, in page 5, line 8, at the end, to insert the words:
or for any payments in respect of the provident fund, the pension guarantee fund, or the pension fund.
The purpose of this Amendment is to obtain some information as to the Government's intentions with regard to the accumulated sums which I understand are held in the provident fund, in the pension guarantee fund, and in the pensions fund of the Pacific Cable Board. As far as I can see, the Bill contains no reference, even of an indirect character, to this subject and when I mentioned the matter earlier no reply was vouchsafed. With your permission, Sir, I will couple with the reference to these three funds, an inquiry as to the proposals of the Government with regard to the men who are affected. I would ask, if I might, that the Assistant Postmaster-General, who deals with all staff matters, should handle the replies in order that we may have the fullest possible information.
A number of Post Office men will be affected by this Bill, because, although they transferred from provincial offices to London in order that they might place themselves at the disposal of the Government in the development of the beam service, there is very grave danger that, with the transfer of the beam resulting from the passage of this Bill, these men will find that the positions they came to London to occupy will no longer be there
for them to fill and that the positions which they formerly filled in the provinces will have been filled up by other candidates by this time; and in the absence of an assurance from the Assistant Postmaster-General that these men will be no worse off as a result of the passage of this legislation, I shall feel remarkably disturbed. I hope that that assurance will be forthcoming. There seems to be no reason whatever why skilled Government servants should be penalised because of this change of policy, and I would ask that the assurance with regard to the Post Office staff itself should be made to cover the men who are employed under the Marconi Company, who, I understand, may be prejudiced as a result of this big merger and amalgamation.
As regards the funds themselves, I understand that the balance of the Provident Fund on 31st March, 1928, was £172,199 15s. 7d.; and I shall be glad if we can be told in the hands of what trustees that sum of money will be placed, exactly how it will be dealt with in the future, whether contributions are to continue to be made to it, and, if so, from what source. Then there is the Pension Guarantee Fund, the balance of which, on the 31st March, 1928, was £31,862 5s. That, I believe, is not the actual value at the moment, but the cost of the securities which formed that fund at the date when they were purchased. Finally, we have the Pension Fund itself, which, taking securities and cash, amounts to £139,860 5s. 10d. I think these sums are
sufficiently large to warrant mention in this discussion, and I hope we shall have a full statement with regard to them from the Noble Lord, if that is possible.
Then there is an inquiry in regard to the staff of the West India cable and the West Indian wireless services. That staff is not specifically referred to, and I shall be glad if we can be told whether they are included in the reference to the staff of the Pacific Cable Board. My final inquiry is one which I have already made to-day, although without success, and that is whether we can be told what is the total staff affected by this Bill, where that staff is allocated at present, what is the position with regard to early retirements, and how many men are likely to he transferred to the merger when this Bill has become an Act.

Mr. A. M. SAMUEL: I think I can give the hon. Member the information that he desires. In the first place, there is no Post Office servant engaged on the West Indian Cable. There is no pension or pension guarantee fund attached to the West Indian undertaking. There is a provident fund, but that has nothing to do with the arrangement for the ultimate provision and regulation of the sums paid for the West Indian Telegraphs.

Mr. BAKER: I hope that we are not at cross-purposes. I understood that this Amendment was accepted with reference to the provident fund, the pension guarantee fund, and the pension fund of the Pacific Cable Board. If it does not so refer, it has been put down in the wrong place.

Mr. SAMUEL: The hon. Gentleman will find that it does so refer. Similar funds attached to the Pacific Cable Board have not been overlooked, and that has been dealt with. It is not possible to deal with those funds in a public Bill, as the rights of individuals are affected, but the Pacific Cable Board, at the instance of the Government, are promoting a private Bill to protect the interests of the staff in respect of these funds, and the necessary notices of a private Bill have already been published.

Mr. BAKER: I have to express my regret that the hon. Gentleman has failed to answer the question which I have put
to him. He tells me that no Post Office staff is employed on the West Indian Cables. That is not what I asked. What I specifically said was that certain Post Office men were invited to come to London to take positions in the Post Office in order to assist the Postmaster-General to develop the beam wireless service.

Mr. SAMUEL: That has nothing to do with the Bill.

Mr. BAKER: It has a great deal to do with the Bill.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I must ask the hon. Member to explain how that is so. The Clause deals with a fund which is presumed to apply to the Pacific Cable undertaking and the West Indian undertaking.

Mr. BAKER: I thought that I explained that the purpose of the Amendment was to elicit information; and it was to secure an assurance as to the future of the staff, both directly and indirectly affected, that I tabled the Amendment. I have made inquiries and if there is any difficulty in pursuing my inquiries with regard to the Post Office staff, I can only ask the Postmaster-General to have regard to what I have said, and to look into it. To come to the Amendment, the Financial Secretary has been good enough to tell us that the question of the fund cannot be dealt with in a public Bill. What is the cost of private legislation, and is that cost going to be placed on the backs of the-men who are entitled to benefit from the provident fund? If that be so, it is an unsatisfactory position.

Mr. TOWNEND: The object of the Amendment is to obtain from the Government an assurance that the interests of the staffs concerned will be adequately safeguarded by the Government when eventually consent is given to the scheme in this Bill. I submit that a definite assurance can be given on the authority of the Government, as was already done where previously similar interests were in jeopardy as a result of a Bill seven years ago. In 1921 the Railways Bill was before the House, and amounts to the extent of several millions of pounds, which to a large extent belonged to the staffs of the respective companies, were involved. The House then had before
them a merger on a far larger scale, but applying exactly the same principle that we are now discussing. I submit the Government ought to give to the staff of the Pacific Cable and other companies equally as definite an assurance as they gave in the case of the railway employés by accepting this Amendment, to-night.

Mr. SAMUEL: I can give the hon. Member the information asked for. With regard to the cost of the private Bill, it will be paid for by His Majesty's Government and there will be no charge on the company. The cost will be approximately about £400.

Mr. BENN: But there is no Money Resolution authorising this expenditure. Without that the Government cannot promote a Bill and charge the cost on money provided by Parliament. There is not a word about the provision of money for this purpose.

Mr. GILLETT: I wish to ask the Minister what chance there is of a private Bill getting through Parliament this Session. If it does not get through before the 1st April, by which time the Board is to be dissolved, who is going to be responsible? If the private Bill has not gone through by 1st April, what is going to happen? Will the Government make themselves responsible for seeing the Bill through?

Mr. W. GRAHAM: This undoubtedly is a point of substance and one on which the Committee are entitled to rather fuller information. I agree that the Amendment might have come more appropriately on Sub-section (1), but the precise position of it does not substantially alter the case. The short facts are that there is a provident fund in the case of the West Indian Company, and in the case of the Pacific Cable Company, there are, I understand, both provident and superannuation fund. These amount, as the White Paper indicates, to a very substantial sum, and in all superannuation funds there is not only the question, of first class importance, of the protection of the capital sums involved, but also of protecting the continuity of the superannuation arrangements. The reply which has been given by the Financial Secretary to the Treasury throws very considerable doubt on that point.
The hon. Member for Stockport (Mr. Townend) has cited a perfectly proper case in the Railways Act, 1921. There we were dealing with the employés of railway companies, not employés of the State. There was in that public legislation a certain provision covering the future of those funds, and no doubt it was supplemented by the particular companies. In this case we have not the Communications Company definitely created, there is, I think, some kind of hiatus, and the Financial Secretary now tells as that the task of providing for the new superannuation arrangements is to be undertaken in a Bill to be promoted by the Government and presumably paid for by the Government. I agree that no burden ought to fall upon these provident and superannuation funds in the case of a transfer which was not promoted by the staffs and over which they have no control. But the question which remains is, if that is to be effected by a Bill at the Government expense, what is the difficulty of making provision in this Bill as has been done in other Acts of Parliament? Is it the difficulty of our relationship with other Governments with whom we are connected, or what is the real difficulty? That is the point which in my view the Government should make perfectly clear.

Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: This is a Measure affecting the rights of private individuals, and it can only be dealt with by a private Bill.

Mr. BENN: If the Pacific Cable Board is abolished, how can it promote a Private Bill?

Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: The Pacific Cable Board is not abolished until the undertaking is transferred.

Mr. BENN: Would it not be much better to think all these things out before bringing a Bill of this kind before Parliament. It is clear that the Government have not thought of the difficulties regarding the staffs, and now they say that money will be available for the promotion of a Bill that we are told will be promoted by the Pacific Cable Board which is going to be abolished on the appointed day. It would have been more to the credit of the Government if they had really thought out this scheme, to say nothing about the mysteries which are involved in other parts of this
Measure. Perhaps, under these circumstances, the Government will agree to accept this Amendment.

Question put, "That those words be there inserted."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 136; Noes, 192.

Division No. 32.]
AYES.
[10.48 p.m.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)
Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)
Scurr, John


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Sexton, James


Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')
Hardie, George D.
Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)


Ammon, Charles George
Hayday, Arthur
Shepherd, Arthur Lewis


Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bilston)
Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Burnley)
Shiels, Dr. Drummond


Baker, Walter
Henderson, T. (Glasgow)
Shinwell, E.


Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)
Hirst, G. H.
Slesser, Sir Henry H.


Barnes, A.
Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)
Smillie, Robert


Barr, J.
Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)
Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)


Batey, Joseph
Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)
Smith, Rennle (Peniston)


Beckett, John (Gateshead)
John, William (Rhondda, West)
Snell, Harry


Bellamy, A.
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip


Benn, Wedgwood
Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)
Stamford, T. W.


Bondfield, Margaret
Kelly, W. T.
Stephen, Campbell


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Kennedy, T.
Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)


Briant, Frank
Kirkwood, D.
Strauss, E. A.


Broad, F. A.
Lawrence, Susan
Sullivan, Joseph


Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Lawson, John James
Sutton, J. E.


Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)
Lee, F.
Taylor, R. A.


Buchanan, G.
Livingstone, A. M.
Thurtle, Ernest


Buxton, Rt. Hon. Noel
Longbottom, A. W.
Tinker, John Joseph


Cape, Thomas
Lunn, William
Tomlinson, R. P.


Charleton, H. c.
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R.(Aberavon)
Townend, A. E.


Cluse, W. S.
Macdonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)
Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles


Compton, Joseph
Mackinder, W.
Viant, S. P.


Connolly, M.
Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton)
Walsh, Rt. Hon. Stephen


Dalton, Hugh
March, S.
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)


Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale)
Maxton, James
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah


Day, Harry
Murnin, H.
Wellock, Wilfred


Duncan, C.
Naylor, T. E.
Welsh, J C.


Dunnico, H.
Oliver, George Harold
Westwood J.


Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.)
Owen, Major G.
Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.


Fenby, T. D.
Palin, John Henry
Wilkinson, Ellen C.


Gardner, J. P.
Paling, W.
Williams, C. P. (Denbigh, Wrexham)


Garro-Jones, Captain G. M.
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)
Williams, David (Swansea, East)


Gibbins, Joseph
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.
Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)


Gillett, George M.
Ponsonby, Arthur
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Gosting, Harry
Potts, John S.
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Rees, Sir Beddoe
Windsor, Walter


Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.)
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Wright, W.


Greenall, T.
Riley, Ben
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)
Ritson, J.



Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O.(W. Bromwich)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Griffith, F. Kingsley
Sakiatvala, Shapurji
Mr. Charles Edwards and Mr. Whiteley.


Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Salter, Dr. Alfred



Grundy, T. W.
Scrymgeour, E.



NOES.


Albery, Irving James
Burman, J. B.
Curzon, Captain Viscount


Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)
Cautley, Sir Henry S.
Davidson, Rt. Hon. J. (Hertford)


Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.
Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)
Davies, Dr. Vernon


Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.
Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth, S.)
Dawson, Sir Philip


Astor, Maj. Hon. John J. (Kent, Dover)
Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)
Dean, Arthur Wellesley


Atholl, Duchess of
Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton
Drewe, C.


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)
Edmondson, Major A. J.


Balniel, Lord
Charteris, Brigadier-General J.
Ellis, R. G.


Banks, Sir Reginald Mitchell
Christie, J. A.
Erskine, James Malcolm Monteith


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer
Evans, Captain A. (Cardiff, South)


Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.
Churchman, Sir Arthur C.
Everard, W. Lindsay


Bellairs, Commander Carlyon
Clayton, G. C.
Falle, Sir Bertram G.


Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)
Cobb, Sir Cyril
Fermoy, Lord


Boothby, R. J. G.
Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D
Ford, Sir P. J.


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips
Forestier-Walker, Sir L.


Bowyer, Captain G. E. W.
Colman, N. C. D.
Forrest, W.


Brass, Captain W.
Cooper, A. Duff
Foster, Sir Harry S.


Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive
Cope, Major Sir William
Foxcroft, Captain C. T.


Briscoe, Richard George
Couper, J. B.
Gadie, Lieut.-Col. Anthony


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Cowan, Sir Wm. Henry (Islingtn, N.)
Galbraith, J. F. W.


Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.
Craig, Sir Ernest (Chester, Crewe)
Ganzoni, Sir John


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks, Newb'y)
Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend)
Gates, Percy


Buckingham, Sir H.
Crookshank, Cpt. H. (Lindsey, Gainsbro)
Gault, Lieut.-Col. Andrew Hamilton


Pullock, Captain M.
Culverwell, C. T. (Bristol, West)
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John


Glyn, Major R. G. C.
Luce, Major-Gen. Sir Richard Harman
Sandeman, N. Stewart


Gower, Sir Robert
Mac Andrew, Major Charles Glen
Sanders, Sir Robert A.


Grace, John
Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)
Savery, S. S.


Grant, Sir J. A.
McDonnell, Colonel Hon. Angus
Sheffield, Sir Berkeley


Greaves-Lord, Sir Walter
MacIntyre, Ian
Skelton, A. N.


Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)
McLean, Major A.
Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)


Grotrian, H. Brent
Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Malcolm
Smithers, Waldron


Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.
Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel-
Stanley, Lord (Fylde)


Hacking, Douglas H.
Makins, Brigadier-General E.
Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westm'eland)


Hall, Capt. W. D'A. (Brecon & Rad.)
Margesson, Captain D.
Steel, Major Samuel Strang


Hammersley, S. S.
Marriott, Sir J. A. R.
Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.


Harland, A.
Mason, Colonel Glyn K.
Streatfelld, Captain S. R.


Hartington, Marquess of
Merriman, Sir F. Boyd
Stuart, Crichton-, Lord C.


Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)
Milne, J. S. Wardlaw
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley)
Mitchell, W. Foot (Saffron Walden)
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser


Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.
Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid


Henn, Sir Sydney H.
Moore, Sir Newton J.
Tasker, R. Inigo.


Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.
Moreing, Captain A. H.
Templeton, W. P.


Hills, Major John Waller
Nail, Colonel Sir Joseph
Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)


Hilton, Cecil
Nelson, Sir Frank
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)


Hope, Capt. A. O. J. (Warw'k, Nun.)
Neville, Sir Reginald J.
Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell-


Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar)
Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Howard-Bury, Colonel C. K.
Nicholson, O. (Westminster)
Wallace, Captain D. E.


Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William
Warrender, Sir Victor


Hume, Sir G. H.
Perkins, Colonel E. K.
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


Hurd, Percy A.
Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)
Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)


Iliffe, Sir Edward M.
Power, Sir John Cecil
Watts, Sir Thomas


James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert
Preston, Sir Walter (Cheltenham)
Wayland, Sir William A.


Jones, Sir G. W. H. (Stoke New'gton)
Price, Major C. W. M.
Wells, S. R.


Kennedy, A. R. (Preston)
Raine, Sir Walter
White, Lieut.-Col. Sir G. Dalrymple-


Kindersley, Major Guy M.
Reid, D. D. (County Down)
Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)


King, Commodore Henry Douglas
Remer, J. R.
Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)


Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement
Rentoul, G. S.
Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)


Knox, Sir Alfred
Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Lamb, J. Q.
Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell
Wolmer, Viscount


Lister, Cunliffe, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip
Ropner, Major L.
Womersley, W. J.


Little, Dr. E. Graham
Ruggles-Brise, Lieut.-Colonel E. A.
Woodcock, Colonel H. C.


Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley)
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)
Wright, Brig.-General W. D.


Loder, J. de V.
Rye, F. G.



Long, Major Eric
Salmon, Major I.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Looker, Herbert William
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)
Mr. Penny and Major The Marquess of Titchfield.

Motion made, and Question put, "That Clause stand part of the Bill."

Division No. 33.]
AYES.
[10.57 p.m.


Albery, Irving James
Charteris, Brigadier-General J.
Foster, Sir Harry S


Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)
Christie, J. A.
Foxcroft, Captain C. T.


Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.
Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer
Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.


Applin, Colonel R. V. K.
Churchman, Sir Arthur C
Gadie, Lieut.-Col. Anthony


Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.
Clayton, G. C.
Galbraith, J. F. W.


Astor, Maj. Hn. John J. (Kent, Dover)
Cobb, Sir Cyril
Ganzoni, Sir John


Atholl, Duchess of
Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.
Gates, Percy


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Colfox, Major Wm. Philip
Gault, Lieut.-Col. Andrew Hamilton


Balniel, Lord
Colman, N. C. D.
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John


Banks, Sir Reginald Mitchell
Cooper, A. Duff
Gower, Sir Robert


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Cope, Major Sir William
Grace, John


Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.
Couper, J. B.
Grant, Sir J. A.


Bellairs, Commander Carlyon
Cowan, Sir Wm. Henry (Islingtn., N.)
Greaves-Lord, Sir Walter


Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)
Craig, Sir Ernest (Chester, Crewe)
Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)


Bevan, S. J.
Crooke, J. Smedley (Deriland)
Grotrian, H. Brent


Birchall, Major J. Dearman
Crookshank, Cpt. H. (Lindsey, Gainsbro)
Hacking, Douglas H.


Boothby, R. J. G.
Culverwell, C. T. (Bristol, West)
Hall, Capt. W. D'A. (Brecon & Rad.)


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Curzon, Captain Viscount
Hammersley, S. S.


Brass, Captain W.
Davidson, Rt, Hon. J. (Hertford)
Harland, A.


Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive
Davies, Dr. Vernon
Hartington, Marquess of


Briscoe. Richard George
Dawson, Sir Philip
Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Dean, Arthur Wellesley
Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxford, Henley)


Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.
Edmondson, Major A. J.
Henderson, Lieut.-Col. Sir Vivian


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C.(Berks, Newb'y)
Elliot, Major Walter E.
Heneage, Lieut.-Col. Arthur P.


Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Ellis, R. G.
Henn, Sir Sydney H.


Buckingham, Sir H.
Erskine, James Malcolm Monteith
Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.


Bullock, Captain M.
Evans, Captain A. (Cardiff, South)
Hills, Major John Waller


Burman, J. B.
Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.)
Hilton, Cecil


Cassels, J. D.
Everard, W. Lindsay
Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar)


Cautley, Sir Henry S.
Falle, Sir Bertram G.
Howard-Bury, Colonel C. K.


Cayzer Sir C. (Chester, City)
Fenby, T. D.
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M.(Hackney, N.)


Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth, S.)
Fermoy, Lord
Hume, Sir G. H.


Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)
Ford, Sir P. J.
Hurd, Percy A.


Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton
Forestier-Walker, Sir L.
Iliffe, Sir Edward M.


Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)
Forrest, W.
James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert

The Committee divided: Ayes, 205; the Noes, 126.

Jones, Sir G. W. H. (Stoke New'gton)
Nelson, Sir Frank
Steel, Major Samuel Strang


Kennedy, A. R. (Preston)
Neville, Sir Reginald J.
Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.


Kindersley, Major Guy M.
Newton, sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)
Strauss, E. A.


King, Commodore Henry Douglas
Nicholson, O. (Westminster)
Streatfeild, Captain S. R.


Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement
Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William
Stuart, Crichton-, Lord C.


Knox, Sir Alfred
Owen, Major G.
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Lamb, J. Q.
Perkins, Colonel E. K.
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser


Lister, Cunliffe-, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip
Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid


Little, Dr. E. Graham
Power, Sir John Cecil
Tasker, R. Inigo.


Livingstone, A. M.
Pownall, Sir Asshetan
Templeton, W. P.


Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley)
Preston, Sir Walter (Cheltenham)
Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)


Loder, J. de V.
Price, Major C. W. M.
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)


Long, Major Eric
Raine, Sir Walter
Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell-


Looker, Herbert William
Rees, Sir Beddoe
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of


Luce, Maj.-Gen. Sir Richard Harman
Reid, D. D. (County Down)
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen
Remer, J. R.
Wallace, Captain D. E.


Macdonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)
Rentoul, G. S.
Warrender, Sir Victor


Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)
Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


McDonnell, Colonel Hon. Angus
Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell
Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)


MacIntyre, I.
Ropner, Major L.
Watts, Sir Thomas


McLean, Major A.
Ruggles-Brise, Lieut.-Colonel E. A.
Wayland, Sir William A.


Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Malcolm
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)
Wells, S. R.


Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel-
Rye, F. G.
White, Lieut.-Col. Sir G. Dalrymple-


Makins, Brigadier-General E.
Salmon, Major I.
Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)


Margesson, Captain D.
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)
Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)


Marriott, Sir J. A. R.
Sandeman, N. Stewart
Williams, C. p. (Denbigh, Wrexham)


Mason, Colonel Glyn K.
Sanders, Sir Robert A.
Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)


Merriman, Sir F. Boyd
Savery, S. S.
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Milne, J. S. Wardlaw
Sheffield, Sir Berkeley
Wolmer, Viscount


Mitchell, W. Foot (Saffron Walden)
Skelton, A. N.
Womersley, W. J.


Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.
Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)
Woodcock, Colonel H. C.


Moore, Sir Newton J.
Smithers, Waldron
Wright, Brig.-General W. D.


Moreing, Captain A. H.
Stanley, Lord (Fylde)



Nail, Colonel Sir Joseph
Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westm'eland)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—




Captain Bowyer and Mr. Penny.




NOES.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. w. (Fife, West)
Grundy, T. W.
Salter, Dr. Alfred


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Hall, F. (York, W.R., Normanton)
Scrymgeour, E.


Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')
Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Scurr, John


Ammon, charles George
Hardie, George D.
Sexton, James


Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bilston)
Hayday, Arthur
Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)


Baker, Walter
Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Burnley)
Shepherd, Arthur Lewis


Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)
Henderson, T. (Glasgow)
Shinwell, E.


Barnes, A.
Hirst, G. H.
Slesser, Sir Henry H.


Barr, J.
Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)
Smillie, Robert


Batey, Joseph
Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)
Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)


Beckett, John (Gateshead)
Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)
Smith, Rennle (Penistone)


Bellamy, A.
John, William (Rhondda, West)
Snell, Harry


Benn, Wedgwood
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip


Bondfield, Margaret
Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)
Stamford, T. W.


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Kelly, W. T.
Stephen, Campbell


Briant, Frank
Kennedy, T.
Sullivan, Joseph


Broad, F. A.
Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M.
Sutton, J. E.


Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)
Kirkwood, D.
Taylor, R. A.


Buchanan, G.
Lawrence, Susan
Thurtle, Ernest


Buxton, Rt. Hon. Noel
Lawson, John James
Tinker, John Joseph


Cape, Thomas
Lee, F.
Tomlinson, R. P.


Charleton, H. C.
Longbottom, A. W.
Townend, A. E.


Cluse, W. S.
Lunn, William
Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles


Compton, Joseph
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R.(Aberavon)
Viant, S. P.


Connolly, M.
Mackinder, W.
Walsh, Rt. Hon. Stephen


Dalton, Hugh
Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton)
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)


Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale)
March, S.
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Maxton, James
Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Joslah


Day, Harry
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Wellock, Wilfred


Duncan, C.
Murnin, H.
Welsh, J. C.


Dunnico, H.
Naylor, T. E.
Westwood, J.


Gardner, J. P.
Oliver, George Harold
Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.


Garro-Jones, Captain G. M.
Palin, John Henry
Wilkinson, Ellen C.


Gibbins, Joseph
Paling, W.
Williams, David (Swansea, East)


Gillett, George M.
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)
Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)


Gosling, Harry
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Ponsonby, Arthur
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.)
Potts, John S.
Windsor, Walter


Greenall, T.
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Wright, W.


Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)
Riley, Ben
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Ritson, J.



Griffith, F. Kingsley
Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O. (W. Bromwich)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Sakiatvala, Shapurji
Mr. Charles Edwards and Mr.Whiteley.

It being after Eleven of the clock, the Chairman left the Chair to make his report to the House.

The Clerk at the Table informed the House of the unavoidable absence of Mr. Speaker from the remainder of this clay's sitting.

Whereupon Mr. HOPE, the Chairman of Ways and Means, took the Chair as Deputy Speaker, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Committee report Progress; to sit again To-morrow.

CONSOLIDATED FUND (No. 1) BILL.

Read a Second time, and committed to a Committee of the whole House for Tomorrow.

AGRICULTURAL CREDITS (SCOTLAND) [MONEY].

Resolution reported.
That, for the purpose of any Act of the present Session to secure in Scotland by means of the formation of a company and the assistance thereof out of public funds the making of loans for agricultural purposes on favourable terms, and to facilitate the borrowing of money in Scotland on the security of agricultural assets, and for purposes connected therewith, it is expedient—

(a) to authorise the payment out of the Consolidated Fund, or the growing produce thereof, of such sums not exceeding one hundred and thirty-five thousand pounds as may be required for making advances to the company to be formed under the said Act and for procuring the underwriting of debentures or debenture stock to be issued by such company as aforesaid for raising sums not exceeding eight hundred thousand pounds;
(b) to authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of sums not exceeding one thousand seven hundred and fifty pounds a year for ten years as contributions towards the cost of administration of the said company;
(c) to authorise the payment into the Exchequer of sums paid by the said company by way of repayment of or interest on such advances as aforesaid."

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."

Mr. W. GRAHAM: We have no desire to debate this problem to-night, but on the Committee stage of the Financial Resolution the Government promised to tell us whether an agreement had been
reached with the Scottish banks. I should like to ask the Secretary of State for Scotland whether that agreement has been completed, and whether he can properly make a short statement to that effect. Then it might be better to discuss the proposal during the Committee stage of the Bill.

The SECRETARY of STATE for SCOTLAND (Sir John Gilmour): Yes, Sir, I am obliged to the right hon. Gentleman. I am happy to be able to report to the House that, since my right hon. Friend dealt with this subject, the whole of the Scottish banks have undertaken to assist the Government to carry out this scheme. We shall be able to discuss this problem more fully on the Committee stage, and I hope that that will meet with approval.

ELECTRICITY (SUPPLY) ACTS.

Resolved,
That the Special Order made by the Electricity Commissioners under the Electricity (Supply) Acts, 1882 to 1926, and confirmed by the Minister of Transport under the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1919, in respect of the borough of Louth, in the parts of Lindsey, in the county of Lincoln, which was presented on the 6th day of November, 1928, be approved.

Resolved,
That the Special Order made by the Electricity Commissioners under the Electricity (Supply) Acts, 1882 to 1926, and confirmed by the Minister of Transport under the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1919, in respect of part of the rural district of Middlesbrough, in the North Riding of the county of York, and for the amendment of the Middlesbrough Electricity Orders, 1898 and 1924, which was presented on the 6th day of November, 1928, be approved.

Resolved,
That the Special Order made by the Electricity Commissioners under the Electricity (Supply) Acts, 1882 to 1926, and confirmed by the Minister of Transport under the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1919, in respect of the rural district of Monks Kirby and parts of the rural districts of Foleshill, Meriden, Nuneaton, Rugby, and Warwick, all in the county of Warwick, which was presented on the 6th day of November, 1928, be approved.

Resolved,
That the Special Order made by the Electricity Commissioners under the Electricity (Supply) Acts, 1882 to 1926, and confirmed by the Minister of Transport
under the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1919, in respect of the urban district of Lynton and part of the rural district of Barnstaple, in the county of Devon, which was presented on the 8th day of November, 1928, be approved.

Resolved,
That the Special Order made by the Electricity Commissioners under the Electricity (Supply) Acts, 1882 to 1926, and confirmed by the Minister of Transport under the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1919, in respect of the parish of Ewhurst, in the rural district of Hambledon, in the county of Surrey, which was presented on the 6th clay of November, 1928, be approved.

Resolved,
That the Special Order made by the Electricity Commissioners under the Electricity (Supply) Acts, 1882 to 1926, and confirmed by the Minister of Transport under the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1919, in respect of the rural district of Hursley, in the county of Southampton, which was presented on the 6th day of November, 1928, be approved.

Resolved,
That the Special Order made by the Electricity Commissioners under the Electricity (Supply) Acts, 1882 to 1926, and confirmed by the Minister of Transport under the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1919, in respect of the parish of Aughton, in the rural district of West Lancashire, in the county palatine of Lancaster, which was presented on the 6th day of November, 1928, be approved."—[Colonel Ashley.]

The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

ADJOURNMENT.

Resolved, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Commander Eyres Monsell.]

Adjourned accordingly at Eleven Minutes after Eleven o'Clock.